LexMARUTI BALA RAUT versus DASHRATH BABU WATHARE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
f A B c D E F G 8 gg MARUTI BALA RAUT v. DASHRATH BABU WATHARE & ORS. August 27, 1974 [P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, M. H. BEG AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.] ·Co11stitution of India, 1950, Article 227-Powers of fligh Court to i11terfer! on the C}Jltstions of fac1 or to reappreciate evidence. Bombay Te1zancy and Agricultural Larki-1 Act, 1948--S. 76--Poirers of Land Rtven.ue Tribunal Jo interfere with the questions of fact in exercise of rei·isionttl power3. In the year 1948 Miraj State was merged in the then Bombay Province and from that date the Bombay Tenancy Act 1939 became applicable to the lands in qu~tion. The question arose whether the appellant was a tenant at the time the Bombay Tenancy Act 1939 was made applicable and would therefore be a protected tenant or not. There were two proceedings in respect of two different parts of the same land one between the appellant on the one hand and Yeshwa11.• and Jinnappa on the other hand and the other between the appellant oM tho one hand and Bhim Rao and Dasrath on the other hand raising the same issue whether the appe11ant was a tenant at the relevant time. In the proceed- ings by Bhim Rao and Dasrath, the Deputy Coffector held that the appellant was a tenant at the releva11_t time. In the procoeedings initiated by Yeshwant and Jin.appa the Mamlatdar also held the appellant to be a tenant. The Mamlatdar'9 order was, however, set aside by the Special Deputy Collector. Two Revision Applications were filed before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal; one by the appellant and the other by Bhim Rao and Dasrath. The Tribunal dismissed the application filed by Bhim Rao and Dasrath and allowed the application filett by the appellant and set aside the order of the Specil Deputy Callee.tor. Two Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court, under Article 227. The High c·ourt allowed both the petitions. HELD: (1) The powers of the ~1aharashtra Revenue Tribunal are to be found in section 76 of the .Act. The Tribunal clearly exceeded its power in re- versing the order of the Special Deputy Collector. The Tribunal clearly acted in complete disregard of its powers and proceeded a<; though it were either deal- ing with the matter as a court of first instanct: or an appellate Court. [902 A-Bl (2) The High Court was, however, plainly in error in interfering with the .iudgment of the Tribunal which merely upheld the Deputy Collector':; order. The High Court has ignored the limitation within which it has to act ¥.:hile ex- ercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. It was not for ihe High Court to di!icuss the evidence and come to the conclusion as to whether the anpellant was or was not the tenant on 11-8-1948. That wa<> a matter for the Denuty Collector whose judgment has been upheld bv the Tribunal.· The High Court while exercising the powers under Article 227 was not entitled to discuss the evidence and come to its own conclusion, on the evidence as to who was in possession of th'e land. The High Court has plainly over-stepped the limits of its power under Article 227. [903 E-904 A] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1941 and 1942 of 1967. (Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment & Order dated the 13th/14th July 1967 and 10th August, 1967 of the Bombay High H Court in S.C.A. No. 73 of 65) S. T. Desai, Ven/<atrao Pawar, Gadgil and Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant. 900 SUrREME COURT REPORTS (1975] 1 s.C.K. N.D. Karkfzanis, V.N. Ganpule, A .N. Karkfzanis and P.C. Kapur, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI, J.-In the year 1932 one Shantappa Watharec father of respondents I and 2 in C.A. 1942, executed a document (we are using the word 'document' because the character of the docu- ment was the subject matter of subsequent litigation) in respect of the western I/3rd share of Survey No. 99 measuring 7 acres and 30 gunthas in the viJlage of Bamani in the State of Miraj in favour of Nabisha Pirajde of Miraj. In 1936 he executed a similar document in respect of middle I/3rd and in 1941 Dashrath and Bhima, belonging to another branch of the family, executed a similar document in res- pect of the eastern I /3rd portion of the land in favour of the said Nabisha Pirjade. On 11-8-1948 Miraj State merged in the then Bombay Province and from that date the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 became applicable to the lands in question. On 15-9-1948 the Bombay Agri- cultural Debt
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.