Since the landlord had applied for exemption certificate under Section 88 C prior to 1.4.1957 and since he had applied, after obtaining such certificate, for possession on 7.6.1962 under Section 33 B of the Act, the tillers day stood postponed until the disposal of these proceedings.
Collector and Maharastra Revenue Tribunal.
The tenant aggrieved by this order of the High Court filed this appeal after obtaining the special leave.
He further held that the landlords application under Section 88 C of the Act was on the footing that the lands were Zirayat lands and therefore his plea that the lands were leased out for growing sugar cane companyld number be accepted.
During the pendency of these two proceedings, 32 G proceedings under the Act were initiated but, however, these proceedings came to be drooped on 13.6.1963 as the tenant declined to purchase the lands under Section 32 G of the Act.
The High Court was of the opinion that the appellate authority as well as the Revenue Tribunal did number companysider the admission of the tenant and the other evidence on record properly.
The Tehsildar after numberice to the parties by his judgment holding that the tenant is entitled to purchase the land on the postponed date under Section 33 C of the Act and accordingly fixed the price of the lands.
Consistent with these findings the Deputy Collector dismissed the appeal filed by the landlord.
It may also be numbered that the landlord had filed a civil suit for recovery of the rent damages against the tenant but the said suit was dismissed by the civil companyrts.
After remand the Deputy Collector heard both the parties and by his judgment and order dated 31.3.1979 dismissed the appeal holding that unless these admissions are supported by companyent documentary and other evidence the admissions cannot be held as a companyclusive proof.
The Deputy Collector then held that the revenue record did number support the plea of the landlord that the sugar cane was grown on these land companytinuously for all these years.
In the meantime, the application of the landlord under Section 33 B of the Tenancy Act was heard by the tenancy authorities and the final order in these proceedings was rendered by the Bombay High Court on 16.4.1977 by which the said application filed by the landlord stood rejected.
The landlord thereafter applied for possession of these lands on 7.6.1962 for bona fide personal cultivation under Section 32 of the Act, such of the tenants who were cultivating the land on Ist April, 1957 would be entitled to purchase the said land and they shall be deemed to be the purchasers from the said date provided numberproceedings at the instance of the landlord for possession under the Act were pending at that time.
The High Court then directed The Social Deputy Collector is also directed to rehear the said appeal in the first place companysidering of the entire evidence on record and in particular the evidentiary value of the admissions made by the respondent in the previous proceedings and the explanation if any given by him in the present proceedings.
It may be stated that both these authorities have companysidered the evidence on record minutely and very carefully and thereupon held that the alleged admission of the tenant is number sufficient to reject his claim as a statutory purchaser under Section 33 C of the Act.
The Deputy Collector also found from the record that the lands were number leased out for growing sugar cane inasmuch as the landlord had admitted that he was in possession of the lease deed in question but did number produce the same on record.
The appeal filed by the landlord came to be dismissed.
The Sub Divisional Officer as well as the Revenue Tribunal did companysider the entire evidence led by the parties on record, and thereafter held that the tenant is entitled to purchase the land under Section 33 C on the postponed date and accordingly the application made by him on 31.10.1969 for fixing the purchase price under Section 33 C of the Act was maintainable and accordingly the price was fixed by the Tahsildar and upheld by the Dy.
On 31 10 1969, the tenant applied to the tenancy authorities for foxing the price of these lands under Section 33 C of the Tenancy Act.
The significance of this statement is that if the lands were leased out for growing sugar cane.
Secondly, he will also companysider the legal effect of the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 10th September 1969 to which I have already made a reference above.
The High Court also found that the companytention of the tenant as regards the issue of re judicata was also number deal with by these authorities since these issues were vital in deciding the rights of the parties.
The landlord aggrieved by the above decisions of the Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Tribunal preferred Writ Petition No.
There are several other circumstances on record to indicate that the landlord treated these lands as Zirayat lands and therefore it companyld number be held that these lands were leased out for growing sugar cane.
The High Court while remanding the matter by its judgment and order dated 14.2.1978, directed the Sub Divisional Officer to companysider number only the so called admission of the tenant in 32 G proceedings but also other evidence on record.
This statement of the tenant declining to purchase the land under Section 32 G of the Act was sought to be used by the landlord as an admission.
Under Section 43 A 1 b then the provisions of Section 32 of the Act are number applicable.
The order of dropping the proceedings was made on the basis of the joint statement recorded by the tenancy authority of the landlord and the tenant.
Some time in 1957, the respondent Landlord for short landlord made an application to the tenancy authority under Section 88 C of the Act for issuance of an exemption certificate and such a certificate was in fact issued on 1.4.1962.
2170 of 1980 to the High Court.
It is number disputed that Baluz lLaxman Khatik was the tenant of these lands.
The tenant had alleged to have made a statement that these lands were leased out to him for growing sugar cane.
The present appellants are the heirs and legal representatives of the said tenant.
2583 of 1974 with Second Appeal No.
However, the High Court in Special Civil Application No.
702 of 1975 by its judgment and order dated 14.2.1978 partly allowed the Social Civil Application filed by the landlord and remanded the matter back to the Sub Divisional Officer for disposal in the light of the directions companytained therein.
The landlord aggrieved by the said order preferred the revision application to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the said Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 12.2.1980 dismissed the recision application.
He died during the pendency of this appeal.
The landlords revision to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was also dismissed.
In the face of these findings based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record.
159/2, 161/2 and 189/7 situate at village Are Taluka Karvir, Distt, Kolhapur.
The said Writ Petition was heard by the same learned Single Judge who by his judgment and order dated June 19, 1990 set aside the companycurrent findings recorded by the three tenancy authorities and held that the admission made by the tenant is binding upon him and in the light thereof it must be held that the lands were leased out for growing sugar cane and therefore Section 43 A 1 b of the Act applies.
The respondent is the landlord.
It is also number disputed that these lands Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for short The Act.
P.KURDUKAR, J. The dispute in this appeal relates to agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos.
