He also set aside the order of the Circle Officer regarding the mutation entry.
Against the Deputy Collectors decision, the landlord preferred two revision applications before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
The applicant and the tenant are present.
The tenant Shri Chaware states that the suit land viz.
On these findings the Special Deputy Collector allowed both the appeals, and directed that the possession of the suit land be restored to the tenant.
The landlords and their transferees thereupon moved the High Court of Bombay by two writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution for impugning the revisional orders of the Tribunal.
of the surrender application as required by law.
Hence these appeals.
The landlords application however came up before Shri Bhokare, the then Circle Officer of Miraj who after recording the statements of the tenant and the landlord, made this order on it.
102/1 measuring 8 22 and assessed at Rs.
44 3 0 of Haripur belongs to the applicant and that he is cultivating the same as a protected tenant.
58 810 of 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 5th October, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in , S.C.A. Nos.
Pursuant to the above order, a Panchnama was prepared by the Talati on November 20, 1953, in which it was stated that the possession of this tenancy land had been given to the landlord.
In the alternative, he prayed that if he was found to have lost possession, the same be restored to him, This application was opposed by the landlord and his transferees on two main grounds 1 that the tenant had duly surrendered his tenancy in 1953 and he was number in possession thereafter, and 2 that his application was time barred.
On April 23, 1959, the land lord sold this land to appellants 3 and 4 and respondents 2 and 3.
He further found that, in fact, the tenant had never surrendered the tenancy, but had companytinued to be in possession till he was illegally dispossessed in 1959 and companysequently his application was within time.
M. M. Bhokare Circle Officer, Sangli.
The tenant preferred another appeal also, to the Deputy Collector against the order, dated 18 9 1953, of the Circle Officer, Mr. Bhokare, whereby the tenants name was deleted from the record of rights.
431 was also made in this respect in the, record of rights of the village and the name of the landlord was entered as Kabzedar in actual possession.
1, therefore, order that the possession of the suit land should be handed over to the applicant with the crops and the right as pro.
Act 1948 Haripur Bhokare 18 9 53.
The Tribunal dismissed the revision applications and affirmed the findings of the Deputy Collector.
or pass any final order in the matter.
He further held that there was numberverification.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
T. Desai and B. R. Agarwala, for the appellants.
The landlord prayed that the surrender in his favour should be verified under s.5 3 ,of the Bombay Tenancy Act 67 of 1948.
The Deputy Collector held that Shri Bhokares Order was number an order passed by a Mamlatdar as required by the Tenancy law and, companysequently, it was without jurisdiction and void.
292 of 1962 before the Special Deputy Collector, Sangli.
Rajendra Choudhury and P. C. Kapur, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. These appeals by special leave are directed against the companymon judgment, dated 5.10.1967, of the High Court of Bombay dismissing two Writ Petitions filed by the appellants to impugn the orders of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
Both these ,rounds found favour with the Tenancy Aval Karkun, and he dismissed the tenants application by an order dated 22 11 1961.
He further adds that he does number want to cultivate the same any longer and so he is surrendering the possession willingly along with crops and also the fight as pro.
Mutation entry No.
The Mamlatdar did number verify the surrender.
Aggrieved, the tenant filed Tenancy Appeal No.
The latter executed a Kabje Pavti to the effect, that he had obtained the possession.
tenant.
To this application the landlord annexed a letter of surrender bearing the thumb impression of the tenant.
102/2, admeasuring 8 acres and 22 Gunthas, situated at village Haripur, Taluka Miraj, District Sangh in the State of Maharashtra.
tenant should be deleted under Section 29 i 3 of the B.T. and AL.
695 696 of 1966.
The material facts are these On September 8, 1953, the predecessor of appellants 1 and 2 hereinafter called the landlords made an application to the Mamlatdar of Miraj, that the tenant Respondent number 1 was willing to surrender his tenancy in the agricultural land, bearing Survey No.
On 9 11 1959, the tenant made an application against the landlord and his transferees Sherikars to the Additional Tenancy Avalkarkun, Miraj, praying for a declaration that he was the tenant in possession of the land in dispute and further that the opponents be injuncted number to disturb his possession over the land.
