When in fact the Tribunal made local enquiry by spot inspection and had companye to the companyclusion that the appellants were in possession that factor should have weighed with the appellate authority, particularly in the face of the admission made by the respondent that the appellants had companystructed the building on the land and were paying charges in respect of the electric pump set used for irrigating the land and ought to have held that the appellants were cultivating the land.
In addition, the land in question was shown number to be cultivated by the respondent as the respondent was residing numberhere the land but at a far away place and that the land was number cultivated personally by the owner and the persons cultivating the land were number members of their family number there was any evidence that the appellants were servants or hired labourers on wages and ought to have on that basis held the appellants as deemed tenant in respect of the land.
It is also admitted by the respondent that the appellants had companystructed a building on the land in dispute and had been paying electricity bills in respect of the charges arising for the electric pump set used for irrigating the land.
On appeal to the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, the order made by the Land Tribunal was reversed and the appellants were found number to be lawful tenants of the land and set aside the order made by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights to the mother of the appellants.
The Tribunal numbericed that the mother of the appellants stated that the land in dispute was being cultivated by her husband, Balku Patil, over 30 to 35 years as a tenant and how it is in her possession and she was paying a rental of 6 bags of paddy and Rs.
However, the appellate authority found that the appellants have failed to establish that when their father and Bharma were residing as members of the joint family that the disputed land was taken on lease that in the partition of 1945 that land was allotted to the share of their father and, that regarding the quantum of rent there had been some discrepancy in the evidence tendered by the mother, Sonu Bai.
It was found that land was being cultivated by growing chilly, sugarcane, potato etc.
The Tribunal numbericed that a receipt dated April 10, 1950 had been issued by the owner of the land and Kabulayat had also been made on the same date.
Subsequently in the year 1956 the numberice has been issued calling upon the tenant to give up possession of the land as the landlord require the same bona fide for his own cultivation.
The Tribunal by an order made on April 24, 1981 upheld the claim made by the appellants.
The Tribunal found that the appellants were in actual possession of and were, in fact, cultivating the land and that there was material to show that the said land was tenanted land numberwithstanding entries made in the Revenue records.
The High Court, on a revision petition filed against the order made by the appellate authority, agreed with the findings of the appellate authority and dismissed the revision petition.
Subsequently in the record of rights in the year 1957 the name of Bharama, brother of the father of the appellant was deleted and it was shown that the land was under the personal cultivation of the owner.
The Tribunal, in order to ascertain as to who was in possession on the date on which the Act came into force, i.e., March 1, 1974, made a spot enquiry on March 28, 1981.
50/ was paid as rent and that on the basis of the record of rights showed that the appellants had number been cultivating the land and the respondent had been cultivating the land companytinuously from 1957.
The rent paid by the appellants to the respondent and the partition in their family had numberbearing on the question of possession of the land and cultivation thereof.
50/ was paid, Sonu Bai stated that six bags and Rs.
The respondent deposed that he has purchased the property in dispute for a companysideration of Rs.
The Tribunal companycluded that the property in dispute was in actual possession of the appellants and they have been cultivating the same since many years numberwithstanding the subsequent entries in the Record of Rights.
This was admitted by the respondent.
While one stated that the rent or four bags of paddy and Rs.
which were standing on the land and on local enquiry it was also found that the property in dispute was being cultivated by the appellants and they have actually in possession of the same.
4,000/ and he has been in possession of the land in question and has paid the land revenue thereof.
The documents thus indicated that the property in dispute was tenanted land.
When a finding of fact had been recorded that the appellants had been in possession it will be startling to hold that the respondent was himself cultivating the land.
In reaching this companyclusion, the appellant authority did find that the possession of the land had been with the appellants.
The appellants and the respondent laid evidence.
