In that case also, it was companytended that survey number 47/2 was sold to the appellant by the original owner on 27.11.1970 under registered sale deed since the appellant was number an agriculturist, the sale transaction being in companytravention of Section 63/64 of the Act was invalid.
The Tribunal decided the revision petitions on a wrong footing that there was admission of the appellant that at the time of first transaction of lease of the lands in survey number.
Additional Tehsildar, Akola, dismissed all the three applications made by the respondents.
This order attained finality as its validity was number challenged in any further proceedings.
Having seen the statement of the appellant, we do number find any such clear and unambiguous admission that he was number an agriculturist on 7.3.1969.
A lease deed was executed by land owner Balaji in favour of the appellant on 7.3.1975 for a period of 99 years in respect of the land bearing survey number 27/5.
He was of the view that once appellant had been declared as an agriculturist in one case at the relevant period, that finding when remained unchallenged, was binding on the parties.
In the order of the Tehsildar, it was also numbericed that the appellant had produced documentary evidence in tenancy case No.
In that view, the proceedings were dropped.
Thus, the Tehsildar after elaborately companysidering the evidence, recorded the findings that the land owners failed to prove their case that the appellant was an unauthorized holder of the lands and that he was number an agriculturist during the relevant period.
The Sub Divisional Officer SDO , by a detailed order, dismissed the appeals companycurring with the findings recorded by the Tehsildar.
On the earlier occasion in the proceedings initiated under Section 84 C of the Act in respect of survey number 47/2 between the same parties, the companypetent authority recorded a finding in its order dated 30.8.1971 that the appellant was an agriculturist.
It was also numbericed that the appellant had produced extract of village form No.
There also, a specific issue was raised as to whether the appellant was an agriculturist and the same was answered in favour of the appellant holding that he was an agriculturist by the order dated 30.8.1971 referred to above.
Assuming that he and his father were doing business, that did number necessarily lead to the companyclusion that the appellant was number an agriculturist.
It was also pointed out that the said decision has been recorded in the village records vide M.E. No.
Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed three appeals before the Sub Divisional Officer, questioning the validity and companyrectness of the order passed by the Tehsildar.
14/1981 pertaining to survey number 36/9.
He also observed that the land owners did number establish that the appellant was number an agriculturist by adducing documentary evidence.
36/8 and 36/9 and remanded the case in respect of survey number 27/5 for holding inquiry under Section 32 P of the Act.
The learned senior companynsel for the appellant urged that 1 the Tribunal and the High Court companymitted an error in rejecting the case of the appellant when his status as an agriculturist had been declared by the companypetent authority in earlier proceeding in relation to survey number 47/2 by the order of the companypetent authority dated 30.8.1971 which order remained unchallenged 2 the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction while exercising revisional power under Section 76 of the Act and has acted as an appellate authority by re appreciating the evidence in reversing the order of the appellate authority.
Thereafter, the respondents filed revision petitions before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune.
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions affirming the order of the Tribunal.
The authority, after hearing the parties by its order dated 30.8.1971 on the basis of evidence available, companycluded that appellant was an agriculturist.
Hence, these appeals.
Consequently, he dismissed the applications filed by the land owners.
By a companymon order, the said Tribunal allowed the revision petitions and set aside the order of SDO in respect of survey number.
The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in the revisions filed by the land owners exercising revisional power set aside the orders of the SDO as regards survey number 36/8 and 36/9.
The appellant filed the writ petitions before the High Court questioning the validity and companyrectness of the companymon order passed by the Tribunal.
Immediately after his death, the respondents claiming to be his legal heirs, filed three tenancy cases challenging the validity of sale deeds in respect of survey number 36/8 and 36/9 and lease deed relating to survey number 27/5.
The finding of the Tribunal is opposed to the documentary evidence as well as a binding decision that the appellant was an agriculturist at the relevant period.
Dealing with the said point, the SDO took numbere of the fact that the appellant was already held to be an agriculturist in the case pertaining to survey number 47/2 decided by the companypetent authority on 30.8.1971.
Two lease deeds were executed by the land owner in favour of the appellant on 7.3.1969 for lease period of 10 years in respect of survey number.
Between the same parties when there was a categorical finding and decision that the appellant was an agriculturist, as is evident from the order dated 30.8.1971 made by the companypetent authority, the Tribunal companymitted a serious error in number companysidering the effect of this order.
Proceedings were started by the land owner under Section 84 C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for short the Act before the tenancy authority companytending that the sale deed pertaining to land survey number 47/2 was invalid as the appellant was number an agriculturist.
36/8 and 36/9 on 7.3.1969, he had numberland of his own or of his family for cultivation he and his father were pursuing business other than agriculture.
VII XII in respect of survey number 11/1 of Thugaon Khurd indicating that the said land was standing in the name of the appellant.
However, the case as regards suit land in survey number 27/5 was companycerned, the application filed by the land owners was remanded to make enquiry under Section 32 P within one year.
In that view, the Tribunal remitted the case to the Tehsildar for holding enquiry under Section 32 P of the Act only so far related to survey number 27/5.
The SDO also found that the appeals filed by the land owners were time barred and that the land owners did number put forth any grounds for companydonation of delay.
Thus, having regard to all aspects, the SDO agreeing with the findings recorded by Tehsildar, dismissed the appeals.
Unfortunately, the High Court in the impugned order companymitted the same error of proceeding on the basis of the so called admission alleged to have been made by the appellant.
The Tehsildars order also refers to the order made by the companypetent authority on 30.8.1971 companycluding that the appellant was an agriculturist while dealing with the case relating to survey number 47/2 on identical facts.
It may be stated here itself that the original owner did number challenge the transaction of sale and lease of lands during his life time.
2503 of village Induri.
In the said order, it is stated that the learned Advocate for the land owners raised only one point as to whether the appellant was an agriculturist.
The argument that the suit lands in previous case and the present cases were different and the parties were also number same, was rejected holding that the parties in the cases were number different but the land owners came up as successors in interest.
W I T H A. Nos.
This order attained finality as it was number challenged any further.
As regards the lands in survey number 27/5, the Tribunal taking numbere of the fact that the status of the appellant was declared as agriculturist in tenancy case No.
36/8 and 36/9.
The original land owner Balaji died on 29.8.1980.
84 C/29/70 decided on 30.8.1971 and that the lease deed was executed on 7.3.1975 for a period of 99 years, it was held that the transaction was valid but, however, in regard to this survey number 27/5, the Tribunal has observed that the lease for a period of 99 years was made on 7.3.1975 after tillers day i.e. 1.4.1957, so provisions of Section 32 O of the Act are applicable and the tenant i.e. the appellant was under obligation to give intimation of his willingness to purchase the suit land within one year from taking of lease whether such intimation was given or number was required to be enquired into by the Tehsildar.
59/99 60/99 Shivaraj V. Patil J. One Bala Laxman Landge was the land owner of survey number.
The Additional Tehsildar, Akola, referred to the deposition of the appellant and the documentary evidence produced by him to show that the appellants family paid land revenue to Government and that the land revenue receipts proved that there were agricultural lands in the name of the father of the appellant.
Subsequently these lands were purchased by the appellant under registered sale deeds dated 9.6.1976.
The Sub Divisional Officer in the appeals filed by the land owners challenging the companyrectness and legality of the order of the Tehsildar, on re appreciation of the entire evidence, the pleadings and the companytentions urged on behalf of the parties, by a detailed and companysidered order, dismissed the appeals.
36/8, 36/9, 27/5 and 47/2 situated at village Induri in Ahmednagar District.
He sold the land survey number 47/2 in favour of the appellant under registered sale deed dated 27.11.1970.
