Consistent with this finding, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the tenant as number maintainable and companysequently, set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and the Collector.
The Deosthan Managing Committee found that the income received from the lands was too inadequate to manage Deosthan and, therefore, in a meeting of Deosthan Managing Committee, it was resolved to give these lands on lease for a period of five years.
757 of 1991 after obtaining the special leave.
Consequently, on June 20, 1979, the tenant was dispossessed and possession of these lands were given to Rachappa.
According to him, the Managing Committee was fully authorised to request the Tahsildar to auction these lands and he being the highest bidder is entitled to companytinue in possession in terms of the auction.
Pursuant to the order of remand dated January 14, 1983 passed by the High Court, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal after hearing the parties by its judgment and order dated April 24, 1985 dismissed the revision application filed by the Revision Petitioner.
It is against this order made by the High Court on January 14, 1983, the Secretary, Deosthan Managing Committee, the appellant has filed a special leave petition in this Court which was beyond a period of limitation by 821 days.
Aggrieved by this order passed by the Tribunal, the appellant preferred Writ Petition to the High Court, but the same was dismissed summarily on August 14, 1985.
Aggrieved by this judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the tenant preferred the Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
756 of 1991 arises.
756 of 1991 arises out of an order of remand passed by the High Court on January 14, 1983, but neither the appellant number the third respondent moved this Court early and companysequently the order of remand was worked out.
This Court, however, companydoned the delay and granted special leave out of which Civil Appeal No.
Accordingly, the Tahsildar Jath held the auction sometime in 1978 and Rachappa Shivrudra Hiremath, the third respondent, being the highest bidder, the lands were allotted to him on lease for a period of five years.
This petition of the tenant was companytested by the appellants as also by the third respondent.
The tenant was number unlawfully dispossessed from the lands.
Feeling aggrieved by this order, the respondent No.3 preferred a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur, Learned Single member of the said Tribunal held that these lands were exempted from the operation of the Act by virtue of Section 88 1 a of the Act.
Immediately sometime in July, 1979, the tenant applied to Tahsildar Jath under Section 29 1 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for short Act for possession of these lands on the ground that he was illegally dispossessed from the tenanted lands.
Accordingly, in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 84 of the Act, he directed that the third respondent be evicted and the tenant be put in possession of these lands.
He has also numberright to claim the possession of these lands under the provisions of the Act.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tahsildar, the appellant and the third respondent filed two separate appeals before the Collector who after hearing the parties by his judgment and order dated 16.8.1979, upheld the direction given by the Tahsildar for restoring the possession of these lands but, however, he held that the tenants application would more appropriately fall under Section 84 of the Act and number under Section 29.
The appellant, however, did number file any written statement but the third respondent filed his say.
The Revenue Tribunal by its judgment and order dated April 24, 1985 dismissed the revision application on merits upholding the orders passed by the Tahsildar and the Collector.
The Tahsildar Jath granted the application filed by the tenant holding that he companyld number be deprived of the possession of these lands being the tenant and accordingly directed that the possession be restored.
The tenant has numberright to challenge the auction.
It is against this order the appellant has filed Civil Appeal No.
Since the parties in both these appeals as also the issues involved being companymon, they are disposed of by this companymon judgment.
It appears that since 1948, these lands were in possession of Bhimanna Mallappa Mali the first respondent as a protected tenant on payment of rent to the Deosthan Managing Committee.
P. Kurdukar, J. The lands bearing Survey Nos.
200/2 admeasuring 3 acres 2 gunthas and 201/2 admeasuring 12 acres 8 gunthas situate at village Madgyal admittedly belonged to Maruti Deo, a deity, through V.M. Kulkarni.
It was further resolved that the Managing Committee should move Tahsildar Jath to hold an auction in respect of these lands.
