Judgment:
Nishita Mhatre, J.
1. By this Petition, the petitioners have challenged the Judgment and Order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. MRT/SH/III/2/89 dated 16th April, 1990 and order in the Review Application No. MRT/SH/IX-4/2/90 dated 31st January, 1991.
2. This litigation has a chequered history. One Sakhubai Gavane was a certificated landlady under Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (in short the said Act). She claimed that she was the landlady for half of 10 acres and 36 gunthas at Survey No. 11 at Village Pothare, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur. The respondents were her tenants. The petitioners herein are the heirs of Sakhubai.
3. An application was filed by Sakhubai on 8th January, 1962 under Section 33B of the said Act. That application was rejected by the Tenancy Avval Karkoon on 28th February, 1963 on the ground that Sakhubai could not prove that she required the suit lands for her bonafide personal use and cultivation. Sakhubai then preferred a Tenancy Appeal before the Deputy District Collector, Solapur. By an order of 18th June, 1965, the order of the Tenancy Avval Karkoon was confirmed. Sakhubai then preferred a Revision Application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal bearing No. X-19-A-65. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the application on 17th July, 1968 and remanded the matter for a fresh enquiry.
4. The Tenancy Avval Karkoon, therefore, commenced a fresh enquiry under Section 33B of the said Act. Statements of Sakhubai were recorded. By an order of 25th March, 1970, the Tenancy Avval Karkoon dismissed the application by concluding that Sakhubai was not entitled for possession of the lands. Thereafter, the landlady filed an Appeal bearing No. 263 of 1970 before the Deputy Collector. He directed that an enquiry be held about the comparative total holding of the landlady and the tenants. Thereafter, the respondents herein preferred a Revision Application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The order of the Deputy Collector was confirmed on 22nd June, 1971. The tenants i.e. the respondents herein therefore filed a Special Civil Application before this Court. The Petition was rejected on 13th September, 1996 by confirming the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. This court held that the issue regarding the comparative holding of the landlady and the tenants should be decided.
5. The original landlady Sakhubai and the original tenants expired. Their respective heirs then pursued the litigation. The statements of all the parties were recorded by the Tenancy Avval Karkoon to ascertain the comparative holding. By an order of 27th February, 1987, the Tenancy Avval Karkoon concluded that the holding of the landlady was in excess of that of the tenants. An Appeal was preferred by the petitioners (heirs of Sakhubai) before the Sub-Divisional Officer, MHADA, Division Kurduwadi. The order of the Tenancy Avval Karkoon was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 25th November, 1988. The petitioners then preferred a Revision Application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which was dismissed on 16th April, 1990. Hence the present Petition.
6. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the lower courts have not calculated the total holding of the parties correctly. He submits that the land of the daughters has been taken into account while calculating the total land holding of the petitioners. He submits that once it was held that Sakhubai, the predecessor, was a certificated landlady, then a further enquiry ought to have been made before additional lands were included in the lands held by the deceased Sakhubai. He further submits that the land holding of the married daughters could not have been considered so as to deprive the petitioners of their rightful claims. According to the learned Advocate, all the courts below have committed a grave error which has seriously jeopardize the interest of the petitioners. He, therefore, submits that the orders impugned should be set aside.
7. Mr. Killedar appearing for the respondents points out that the Petition itself has become infructuous in view of the fact that a certificate under Section 32M of the said Act has been issued in favour of the respondents on 29th May, 1989. He submits that once a certificate has been issued under Section 32M after an enquiry was conducted, the petitioners cannot be restored to their land as there is no provision permitting resumption of such land. The learned Advocate has produced a copy of the order passed by the Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Karmala on 22nd May, 1989 in an Application filed by the respondents under Section 32G of the said Act. He submits that by this order, the purchase price was fixed under Section 32G at Rs. 1,159.70. The amount was to be paid within three months from the date of the order. Accordingly, the respondents paid the amount and a certificate under Section 32M of the said Act has been issued to them. He relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Maruti Namdeo Gade v. Dattatraya Vishnu Maval reported in 78 Bom LR 602.
8. The submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the calculation of the land holding of the petitioners viz-a-viz the respondents is incorrect cannot be accepted. Three courts have taken a concurrent view that the respective holdings of the petitioners and the respondents have been calculated correctly. The only contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners is that, the land holdings of the petitioners daughters who were married ought not to be included while considering whether the respective holdings of the parties were correct.
9. All these submissions have now become academic in view of the fact that a certificate under Section 32M of the said Act had already been issued before the Petition was filed. The respondents have paid the purchase price as required under Section 32G of the said Act and they are now recognized as owners of the lands.
10. In my view, therefore, the Petition must be dismissed. There is no evidence on record to indicate that the lands shown as the holdings of the daughters of Sakhubai were not lands which they had inherited from Sakhubai and therefore the submissions on behalf of the petitioners are rejected.
11. Rule discharged.
12. No order as to costs.