1998 (10) TMI 531

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e lands vested in the State Government pending the regrant. Concededly, the first respondent Dinkar Deshmukh was the tenant in lawful possession of these lands till 8.2.1959 on which date according to the Watandar Mahadeo Mohite, the tenant had voluntarily surrendered his tenancy right in his favour. The lands were regranted to the Watandar by the State Government on payment of occupancy price on 8.8.1963. Before such regrant was made, Mahadeo Mohits, the former Watandar, had sold these lands to M/s Hanumant Rao Deshmukh and Wamanrao Ddeshmukh the appellants herein, by registered sale deed dated 4.4.1959. Pursuant to this sale transaction, mutation was sought to be made in favour of the appellants to which the tenant objected claiming that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated 7.4.1972 remanded the matter to the Tehsildar to find out the actual date of dispossession and thereafter pass appropriate order. The tenant moved the High Court by way of Writ Petition which came to be dismissed on 19.9.1977. On remand, the TAK Tehsildar after considering the material on record, dismissed the tenant's application vide its order dated 28.2.1979 holding that it was batted by limitation. The tenant's appeal was also dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 15.2.1983. Revision application filed by the tenant to the Maharashtra Tribunal was also dismissed on 24.2.1985. Against these concurrent judgments passed by the tenancy authorities, the tenant preferred a Writ Petition to the High Court and the High Court ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ded to TAK-Tahsildar for disposal in accordance with law. Mr. Ganpule, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-tenant, supported the judgment of the High Court and urged that the high Court was fully justified in given benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. He urged that it was open to the appellants to challenge the tenants plea under Section 14 of the Limitation Act on all grounds including the bonafides. Having not done so, it would be too late to accept such a contention at this stage and seek remand of the matter to the tenancy authorities. He also urged that the tenant who had been fighting for his rights under the Act was successfully kept out of possession for more than 40 years and therefore, this Court shoul....