Jagannath Mallappa Wale vs Maharudra Mahaling Todkar

F.I. Rebello, J.—The Petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, in Revision application No. MRT-SS-213/87 dated 13th April, 1988 has preferred this writ petition. A brief narration of the facts may be necessary for disposal of this petition.

The petitioner who was the owner of agricultural land described under Survey Nos. 582/2 and 582/6 sold the same by a Sale Deed dated 25th September, 1972 for a consideration of Rs. 7,000/- to the Respondent. It transpires that in some cognate proceedings suo moto proceedings were taken by the Tahsildar to proceed with u/s 63 read with Section 84 C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1948 on the ground that the Respondent was not an agriculturist and as such the purchase was null and void. Subsequent to that the Petitioner herein also moved such an application.

It was earlier the contention of the Petitioner herein that there was no Sale Deed but in fact it was a loan arrangement. On the application of the Petitioner, the Tahsildar in tenancy Case No. I of 1983 allowed the application and declared that the transfer of suit land by the present Petitioner in favour of Respondent under the registered Sale Deed for Rs. 7000/- on 25th September, 1972 is invalid u/s 84 C(3) of the said Act. He further directed that the suit land vests in the Government free from all encumbrances thereon and that the suit land should be disposed in the manner provided by law.

Aggrieved by the said Order, the Respondent preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority which was numbered as Tenancy Appeal No. 18 of 1986. The Appellate Authority concurred with the findings given by the Tahsildar and held that the Appellant was not an agriculturist and that he had not produced any evidence to prove his allegation that he was a member of the joint family in which agriculture was a profession. A finding was also given that the Respondent was having his own business and not agriculture.

Petitioner aggrieved by the said judgement preferred a revision before the Revisional Authority viz. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune. The Revenue Tribunal reversed the orders of the Tahsildar and the Appellate Authority on the ground that evidence on record has not been considered and held that the Sale Deed in favour of the Petitioner was legal and valid, that the Petitioner had established that he was an agriculturist at the time he purchased the agriculture land and consequently allowed the revision application.

Aggrieved by the said Order, the Petitioner herein has approached this Court. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Tribunal relied upon a document which was not in evidence either before the Tahsildar or the Appellate Authority and consequently the Tribunal was without jurisdiction in reversing the orders of the Tahsildar and Appellate Authority.

On a perusal of the record and the order impugned, in my opinion the Order passed by the Tribunal is justified. The Tribunal has relied on the Sale Deed in which the Respondent was described as an agriculturist. Certain other evidence have been relied upon including statement recorded on Oath of the Respondent. All this evidence which was considered by the Tribunal had been ignored by both the Tahsildar as well as the Appellate Authority and as such the Revenue Tribunal was right in setting aside the Order of the lower Authorities.

It may be mentioned that under the Act an Agriculturist is defined as a person who cultivates land personally. The fact that the person may also be carrying on some other business would not by itself be a bar on the person becoming an agriculturist within the meaning of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1948. In the instant case, material which was available before the Tahsildar was not considered by the Tahsildar. The same was also not considered by the Appellate Authority and consequently the Tribunal was right in reversing the order.

It may also be mentioned that the order of the Tahsildar was that the land was to vest in the Government. In other words, the Petitioner herein would not be a person aggrieved by the Order of the Tahsildar in as much as the Petitioner would not be drawing any advantage arising from the said order. In such a situation and considering the fact that the Revenue Tribunal has passed an order in favour of the Respondent, interference by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted.

In the circumstances of the case, Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.