http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MITHULAL BALAPRASAD TIWARI (DEAD)

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHANKAR BHIMAJI SHINDE

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/02/1999

BENCH: G.T.Nanavati, N.Santosh Hegde

JUDGMENT:

Nanavati.J.

       f The land belonging to the  respondent  was  assumed  by  the State  for management under Section 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to  as  the Act).   The order to that effect was passed by the Assistant Collector, Nasik, on 10.3.1953.    The  Assistant  Collector then  gave  it on lease to the appellants for ten years i.e. from March 10, 1953 to March 31, 1963.  On January 31,  1963 the Government decided to terminate the management on expiry of 10  years.    Pursuant  to that decision the Collector of Nasik passed an order on 31st April, 1963 for termination of the management and the respondent was put in  possession  of his land  on 31.7.1963.  Thereafter in 1965, the appellants, claiming to have become entitled to purchase it  applied  to the  authorities  for starting proceedings under Section 32G of the  Act  for  determination  of  purchase  price.    The Mamlatdar  dropped  those proceedings by an order dated Nov. 13, 1968 as he was of the view that the appellants  were  no longer  tenants  of  the land and, therefore, did not become entitled to purchase it.  The appellants preferred an appeal to the  Special  Deputy  Collector  who  allowed  the  same. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred an appeal to the Maharashtra Revenue  Tribunal.   It was allowed and the case was remanded to the  Mamlatdar.    This  time  the  Malatdar recorded  a  contrary  finding and fixed the purchase price. The respondent preferred an appeal to the Collector  but  it was dismissed.  He, then filed a revision application before the Maharashtra  Revenue  Tribunal.    It was allowed as the Tribunal held that after termination of the  management  the appellants did not have any subsisting right and, therefore, the appellants did not become entitled to purchase it and no proceeding  could  have  been initiated under Section 32G of the Act.  As the decision of the Tribunal went against  them the  appellants  approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.  The High Court after  considering  the relevant  provisions  of  the Act and the facts of this case agreed with the  findings  recorded  by  the  Tribnunal  and dismissed the writ petition.

       It  was  contended  by  the  learned counsel for the appellants that the management came to and end on  31.3.1963 and on that day the lease granted by the Assistant Collector in favour  of  the  appellants  was  subsisting.  He further submitted that as  the  respondent  did  not  terminate  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

tenancy  of the appellants within the time prescribed by the proviso to Section 88(1)(d) the appellants  became  entitled to purchase  the  land.  Learned counsel also submitted that the decision of this Court in  Dhondu  Undru  Choudhary  Vs. Ganpatlal Shankarlal  Agarwal - 1991 Supp.  (1), SCC 513 has no application to the facts of this case  as  the  lease  in favour of the appellants was subsisting on the date on which management  came to an end and, therefore, possession of the appellants was not that of  a  tresspasser.    The  Tribunal after considering the relevant material on record found as a matter  of  fact  that  the  management  had  continued till possession of the land was handed over to the respondent  on 31.7.63.  that finding has been confirmed by the High Court. It  being  a finding of fact, we will have to proceed on the basis that the management had really continued till 31.7.63. We find no material on record  which  would  establish  that management had  come  to  an end earlier.  It is an admitted position  that  the  tenancy  created  in  favour   of   the appellants had  come  to  an  end  on  31.3.63.   Therefore, possession of the appellants thereafter has to  be  regarded as  that  of  a  trespasser,  following the decision of this Court in Dhondu Undru Choudhary Vs.    Ganpatlal  shankarlal Agarwal -  1991  Supp  (1) SCC 513 (supra).  For that reason the appellants did not become entitled to claim  benefit  of the proviso  to  Section  88 (1)(d) of the Act.  This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.  No order as to costs.