9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent No. 1 from the list of tenants to correct the records prepared Under Section 8(1) of the 1958 Act. According to the said application the suit land is owned and possessed by the applicants and they have been cultivating it personally by engaging Saldars and labourers. The non-applicant's father (Respondent No. 1) was engaged as a Saldar and worked as a Saldar in the field of the applicants for nearly 20 years. The respondent No. 1 was also engaged as such along with his father. The applicants also entrusted their bullocks and implement to the custody of their Saldars since the beginning. It was specifically averred in the said application that the Patwari of the village Dongarkhadala and Kherdi in collusion with the non-applicant had entered the name of the respondent No. 1 in the list of tenants prepared and published Under Section 8. Hence a prayer was made for deleting the said name which was wrongly recorded therein. During the pendency of the said proceeding it is not in dispute a compromise was arrived at between the appellants and respondent No. 1 on 21st December, 1960. In paragraph (8) of the said compromise respondent No. 1 admitted that he was never tenant of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) who allowed the appeal by holding that the compromise was brought upon under pressure and allurement, hence could not be acted upon thus in view of evidence on record held respondent No. 1 to be the tenant of the suit land primarily on the basis of sole entry recorded Under Section 8 of the said Act published on 1st April 1959. The appellants challenged this order before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in revision which was dismissed. Thereafter a writ petition was filed in the High Court which was dismissed and finally the letters patent appeal in the High Court was also dismissed. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants Shri Mohta submits once in the proceeding Under Section 8 of the aforesaid Act, between the appellants and the respondent, the question was determined by holding respondent not to be the tenant of the appellants and that order having become final since no appeal was preferred, he is stopped from raising a contradictory plea in subsequent proceeding initiated by Tahsildar Under Section 49B, in respect of the same land. He submits only foundation for the claim of the respondent to be the tenant is the said entry, only for one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he date of this compromise in pursuance thereof the respondent No. 1 purchased the said land for the said consideration. For 11 years thereafter no proceeding or action was initiated by respondent No. 1 over the suit land and parties continued to enjoy the suit land in terms of the said compromise and as a consequence of the order passed Under Section 8(3) recording in favour of the appellant by deleting the name of respondent. It is only on 2nd February, 1971 i.e., after 11 years, suo motu proceeding was initiated by Tahsildar Under Section 49B. It is on these admitted facts and the aforesaid facts, the controversy is to be adjudicated. 7. In the second round of proceeding Under Section 49B Tahsildar upheld the contention of the appellants on the basis of the compromise as aforesaid but in appeal the Collector negatived the contention holding in favour of the respondent. Similarly, the revision was also dismissed by the Tribunal. Both the appeal and the revision were dismissed primarily by holding that the compromise was arrived under pressure and allurement and that he was recorded as tenant in the year 1958-59. The writ petition and letters patent appeal filed by the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 1958-59 stood erased when name of respondent No. 1 was deleted by the competent authority under this very Act. 9. Tahsildar while exercising his suo motu power Under Section 49B has to initiate on the basis of materials before him not arbitrarily. Every exercise of suo motu power explicitly or implicitly reveals to correct an error crept in under a statute, what ought to have been done was not done or which escaped the attention of any statutory authority, or error or deliberate omission or commission by the subject concerned requires correction, of course, within the limitation of any... such statute. This has to be based on some relevant material on record, it is not an omni power to be exercised on the likes and dislikes of such an authority. Though such a power is a wide power but has to be exercised with circumspection within the limitations of such statute. Wider the power the greater circumspection has to be exercised. 10. Returning to the present case it has to be seen what on the records of the Tahsildar when he initiated proceeding Under Section 49B. Admittedly the only documentary evidence on records was the sole entry of 1958-59 which stood deleted by an order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w to such determination. Section 49B - Transfer of possession and ownership of lands to certain dispossessed tenants - Where a tenant referred to in Section 46 or Section 49A was in possession on the appointed day but is not in possession of the land held by him on the relevant date on account of his being dispossessed before that date, otherwise than in the manner and by an order of the Tahsildar as provided in Section 36 and the land is in the possession of the landlord or his successor-in-interest on the 31st day of July, 1969 and is not put to a non-agricultural use on or before the last mentioned date; then, the Tahsildar shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 36, either suo motu or on the application of the tenant hold an inquiry, and direct , that such land shall be taken from the possession of the landlord, or as the case may be, his successor-in-interest and shall be restored to the tenant and the provisions of Sections 46 to 49A shall, in so far as they may be applicable apply thereto, as if the tenant had held the land on the relevant date subject to the modification that the ownership of land shall stand transferred to and vest in the tenant, and such tena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar decides the dispute in accordance with Sub-section (2) of Section 100 of this Act, which is final, subject to appeal or revision. For deciding this Tahsildar is empowered to enquire to determine the real nature of the transaction between the parties, by taking such evidence as he deems fit by virtue of Sub-section (4) of Section 8. 13. We find in the present case Tahsildar reopened the very question which finally stood concluded, viz. whether respondent No. 1 was or was not the tenant of suit land? He further erroneously entered into a new promise of reopening the question of validity of the compromise which could have been in issue if at all in appeal or revision by holding that compromise was arrived at under pressure and allurement. How can this question be taken up for determination when this became final under this very same statute. This is also not a case that respondent No. 1 made any application even Under Section 46(1A)(a) for getting back the possession from the appellants or any application Under Section 49B. So on the relevant date there did not exist any record for the Tahsildar to initiate proceedings suo motu except the record of 1958-59 entry which stood deleted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
