Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a proceeding under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act concerning agricultural land in Village Mendholi, Tal. Ajra, Dist. Kolhapur. The landlord respondents filed an application in 2003 seeking fixation of purchase price, alleging that the predecessors of the petitioner were tenants. On 12.12.2003, the Tahsildar and ALT, Ajra passed an order fixing the purchase price for only half of the suit property, holding that the tenants were not ready and willing to purchase the entire land. The petitioner, who claimed to be a tenant, alleged that he had no notice of the proceeding, that his signatures on the statements recorded were forged, and that the order was obtained by fraud. He came to know about the order only upon receiving a delivery of possession notice in January 2004. After pursuing information through the Human Rights Commission and the RTI Cell, he obtained relevant documents in June 2008 and filed Tenancy Appeal No. 15 of 2008 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadhinglaj, along with an application for condonation of delay. The SDO allowed the appeal, set aside the Tahsildar's order, and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry. On remand, the Tahsildar by order dated 01.10.2010 fixed the purchase price for the remaining 2.88 Hectors. The landlords challenged this order in appeal, but the SDO dismissed both appeals on 30.11.2011 and 05.03.2011. The landlords then filed three Tenancy Revision Applications before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune. By impugned order dated 04.08.2017, the Tribunal quashed the Tahsildar's 2010 order and restored the original 2003 order. The petitioner challenged that order by way of the present writ petition. The main legal issue was whether the Tribunal correctly interfered with the SDO's remand order when the original 32G proceeding was initiated on an application by the landlord without issuing statutory public and individual notices as mandated under Section 32G(1). The petitioner argued that the tenants were deemed purchasers and that the surrender of tenancy was illegal. The respondents contended that the appeal was filed after a long delay of five years without sufficient cause and that the order was passed with consent. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 32G and held that the responsibility to initiate proceedings under the said section lies exclusively with the competent authority to be exercised suo motu after giving public notice and individual notices to all concerned. The landlord's application was not maintainable. The court found that the SDO had correctly appreciated the procedural infirmities and the allegation of fraudulent signatures, and had rightly ordered a fresh inquiry. Consequently, the impugned order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was set aside, and the SDO's remand order was restored. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Deemed Purchase and Surrender - Sections 15, 29, 32 Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act - Tenants cultivating land on tillers' day are deemed purchasers and any surrender of tenancy thereafter without following the mandatory procedure under Sections 15 and 29 is void - Held that the predecessors of the petitioner were admittedly cultivating on 01.04.1957 and therefore became deemed purchasers; the purported surrender and delivery of possession was done without statutory procedure. (Para 9) B) Tenancy Law - Initiation of Proceedings under Section 32G - Sections 32G, 32G(3), 32P(2) Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act - Proceedings under Section 32G must be initiated suo motu by the Agricultural Land Tribunal by publishing a public notice and issuing individual notices to the tenants, landlords and all interested persons; an application filed by the landlord is not maintainable - Held that the Appellate Authority correctly observed that the Competent Authority was required to initiate the proceeding suo motu and that the landlord's application without compliance with the mandatory notice requirements rendered the order invalid; remand for fresh inquiry was justified. (Paras 14-15) C) Evidence - Fraudulent Signatures - The Appellate Authority noted that the signatures on the undated statement recorded by the Tahsildar in the 32G proceeding bore no resemblance to the actual signatures of the tenants, which warranted a remand for fresh inquiry to ensure fairness and rule out fraud. (Paras 4, 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in quashing the Tahsildar's order dated 01.10.2010 and restoring the order dated 12.12.2003, and whether the original proceedings under Section 32G were vitiated by fraud and non-compliance with statutory procedure.
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 04.08.2017 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in Tenancy Revision Application No. 25 of 2010 and connected revisions was set aside. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer remanding the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh inquiry was upheld, and the Tahsildar's order dated 01.10.2010 was restored.
Law Points
- Section 32G proceedings must be initiated suo motu by the Tribunal
- landlord's application not maintainable
- deemed purchaser status on tillers' day
- surrender of tenancy must follow Sections 15 and 29 procedure
- signature discrepancies may indicate fraud
- delay condonation requires sufficient cause
