Balaprasad Tiwari Vs. Shankar Bhimaji Shinde  INSC 26 (11 February 1999)
N.Santosh Hegde Nanavati.J.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
being a finding of fact, we will have to proceed on the basis that the
management had really continued till 31.7.63.
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 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