The High Court by the impugned order set aside the order of the Tribunal and held that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the finding of the Sub Divisional Officer that the land in question was number leased out for sugarcane cultivation.
Accordingly, the Additional Tahsildar held fresh inquiry and again by its order dated 10th of December, 1981 reiterated its earlier finding and held that the land was leased out for growing sugarcane and the proceeding was dropped.
The tenant assailed the aforesaid order before the High Court in a writ petition.
The Additional Tahsildar ALT, Radhanagari, at the first instance, held that the land in question was leased out for growing sugarcane and, accordingly, dropped the proceeding.
While doing so, the Tribunal held as follows In the instant case as I have stated earlier there is sufficient evidence on record to show on the basis of entries in the E Patrak that suit land was companytinuously growing sugarcane crop from the year 1946 and this particular fact is also companyroborated to some extent by two independent witnesses examined by the applicant landlords.
51 admeasuring 35 gunthas at Village Pandewadi within Taluka Radhanagari in the District of Kolhapur.
The landlord then preferred revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, which set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer and restored that of the Additional Tahsildar.
However, in appeal, the said order was set aside and the matter ultimately remitted back to him to hold fresh inquiry.
After examining the judgment and order passed by the S.D.O. Shahuwadi, this Court companyes to the companyclusion that the findings recorded by the S.D.O. Shahuwadi were companysistent with the evidence on record.
CHANDRAMAULI KR.
The tenant thereafter preferred appeal which was heard by the Sub Divisional Officer, Shahuwadi Division, Kolhapur who allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Additional Tahsildar on its finding that the landlord has failed to prove the specific purpose of the lease.
One Govinda Bala Patil, since deceased, the predecessor in interest of the appellants, hereinafter referred to as the landlord, owned land being R.S. No.
PRASAD,J. This appeal arises out of a proceeding under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
A proceeding under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was initiated by one Rama Dattu Naikwade, predecessor in interest of the respondents, for determination of price of the land on the plea that he shall be deemed to have purchased the land.
