Shantabai Vithal Patil ( dead ) by Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Ambaji Laxman Thakur ( dead ) by Lrs. & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5297 of 1992 ( from the Judgment and Order dated 7.1.92 of the Bombay High Court in W.P.No. 3682 of 1981 )
Petitioner: Shantabai Vithal Patil ( dead ) by Lrs. & Ors.
Respondent: Ambaji Laxman Thakur ( dead ) by Lrs. & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5297 of 1992 ( from the Judgment and Order dated 7.1.92 of the Bombay High Court in W.P.No. 3682 of 1981 )
Judges: G.T. NANAVATI & S.P. KURDUKAR JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 14, 1998
Appearances:
Mr. V.N. Ganpule , Senior Advocate , Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh , Mr. Umesh Bhagat , Mr. S.K. Agnihotri , Advocate with him for the appellants .
Mr. V.B. Joshi and Mr. Umesh Bhagat , Advocates for the Respond-ents
Head Note:
Section 31 , 37 – Possession – Claim and entitlement of tenant – Concurrent findings by Tehsildar , SAD and Tribunal that after getting possession , the landlady has not cultivated the land herself – Findings supported by Record of rights . Held that Tehsildar was justified in allowing application for possession of tenant under Section 37 of the Act . ( Para 2 )
JUDGEMENT:
NANAVATI , J .
1. This appeal is filed by the heirs of the landlady against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 3682 of 1981 . The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by them because the Tehsildar Alibag , the Sub-Divisional Officer . Alibag and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal have recorded a concurrent finding that the landlady after ob-taining possession from the tenant under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act , 1948 had ceased to cultivate the land personally within the period of 12 years and therefore the original tenant has become entitled to get back possession of the said land .
2 . After going through the record , we also find that the said finding is not only supported by the material on record but is also correct . In the record of rights , is Form No. 12 , it is clearly recorded that Pushpalata , married daughter of the landla-dy , had cultivated the land in 1973 and 1974 . That would mean that the landlady was not cultivating the land personally after obtaining possession of it from the tenant . The Tehsildar , therefore , was justified in allowing the application for posses-sion filed by the tenant under Section 37 of Act . The appeal , the revision and the writ petition were rightly dismissed . This appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs .
1. This appeal is filed by the heirs of the landlady against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 3682 of 1981 . The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by them because the Tehsildar Alibag , the Sub-Divisional Officer . Alibag and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal have recorded a concurrent finding that the landlady after ob-taining possession from the tenant under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act , 1948 had ceased to cultivate the land personally within the period of 12 years and therefore the original tenant has become entitled to get back possession of the said land .
2 . After going through the record , we also find that the said finding is not only supported by the material on record but is also correct . In the record of rights , is Form No. 12 , it is clearly recorded that Pushpalata , married daughter of the landla-dy , had cultivated the land in 1973 and 1974 . That would mean that the landlady was not cultivating the land personally after obtaining possession of it from the tenant . The Tehsildar , therefore , was justified in allowing the application for posses-sion filed by the tenant under Section 37 of Act . The appeal , the revision and the writ petition were rightly dismissed . This appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs .
