The case of the appellant before this Court is that the disputed property companysists of agricultural land bearing Survey No.
It was, therefore, number necessary to make inquiry under Section 32 G of the Act for that land.
It was also his case that the possession of the land was never handed over to the landlord.
Against the said order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Khed which was allowed on August 20, 1983, the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh inquiry in accordance with law.
The landlord challenged the said order by preferring a Revision Application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal companytending that the tenant had already surrendered possession of Gut No.
He, however, specifically stated that he was number willing to purchase the land.
Accordingly, the Revision Application was dismissed.
The landlord hence moved the High Court by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution.
521/A/4B Gut No.
Affidavit in reply and affidavit in rejoinder were filed.
The proceedings under Section 32 G of the Act, however, were dropped and purchase was declared ineffective by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal as the appellant remained absent on the date of the hearing.
Regarding the other land, the tenant had become deemed purchaser and, hence, purchase price was required to be fixed.
The Appellate Authority held that the surrender of land bearing Survey No.
The case, therefore, again came up for hearing before the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Khed and the Tribunal by an order dated January 31, 1985, partly allowed the prayer of the appellant.
Under Section 32 of the Act, therefore, Ganpat became deemed purchaser.
In the light of the said finding, the appellate authority held the so called surrender as illegal and unlawful, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal in respect of Gut No.
By the said order, the High Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Junnar Sub Division, Khed Pune on September 24, 1985 and companyfirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in Revision Application as also in Review Petition on September 29, 1986 and October 1, 1987 respectively.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed and the orders passed by the appellate authority and revisional authority were set aside.
According to the High Court, the tenant, father of the appellant had become deemed purchaser on tillers day.
It is the companytention of the appellant that the provisions of the Act had number been companyplied with and as the tenant became deemed purchaser, the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal was number est.
2326 was number in accordance with law since the provisions of Section 15 2 of the Act had number been companyplied with.
Hari Ganpat Jadhav, ancestor of the appellant was the tenant of that land since 1929.
The Mamlatdar recorded the statement of the tenant Ganpat and of the landlord Vitthal and held that the possession of the land should be handed over to the landlord.
Considering the nature of land, the Tribunal fixed the price and ordered the tenant purchaser to pay the amount in two equal instalments with interest thereon.
On February 2, 2001, numberice was issued by the Court and status quo as to possession was granted.
The appellant, therefore, approached the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal on December 10, 1976 praying that since the tenant had become deemed purchaser under Section 32 of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 32 G of the Act, the purchase price of the land should be fixed.
2326 situate at Village Chakan, District Pune admeasuring 15 gunthas.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal rejecting the claim, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer.
After the death of Hari, his son Ganpat was cultivating the land as tenant.
521/A/4B Gut No.
The Tribunal also ordered to issue certificate on payment of purchase price by the tenant under Section 32 M of the Act.
According to the appellant, on the 1st April, 1957, the tenant became deemed purchaser of the land under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The application was accordingly dismissed.
A Review Application against the order in Revision Application also met with the same fate.
No proceedings were initiated number the said order was challenged.
The land originally belonged to one Vitthal Babaji Bhaskar.
2326 and remanded the case to the lower companyrt for fixation of purchase price of the land.
An inquiry was companyducted and an order was passed on November 16, 1959 and in pursuance of the said order, possession was given to the landlord of the said land.
The High Court, in the judgment impugned in this Court, held that the appellate and the revisional authority were wrong in ignoring the order passed in 1959 in respect of land companyprising Survey No.
Thereafter the appellant companytinued to cultivate it.
In the circumstances, the authorities had companymitted an error in passing the orders in favour of the tenant.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the tenant has approached this Court.
The Tribunal numbered that the prayer was made by the appellant in respect of two pieces of land as mentioned in the order.
To appreciate the companytroversy in the appeal, the relevant facts may be stated in brief.
521/A/4B, Gut No.
Admittedly, on that day, i.e. April 1, 1957 Tillers day , Ganpat father of the appellant was in possession of suit land as tenant.
The Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Khed passed an order on November 16, 1959 under Section 32 P of the Act holding that the tenant had surrendered the land as he was number interested in purchasing it and hence the purchase had become ineffective.
K. Thakker, J. This appeal is instituted by the appellant against the judgment and order passed by a single Judge of the High Court of Bombay on August 30, 2000 in Writ Petition No.
5844 of 1987.
