1996 INSC 1716
                                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                             Mahadeo Vithoba Nikam

                                                           Vs.

                                           Gajanan Pandurang Kulkarni

                                           (K Singh and S S Ahmad JJ.)

                                                      22.11.1996

                                                       ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. This is a tenant's appeal. The appellant's case is that he was in possession of the land for over 50
years. He further states that on the appointed date, i.e., 1-4-1957 he was in possession. He applied
for purchase of the land under Section 32-G(3) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act,
1948 (for short "the Act"). The application was decided by the Additional Tehsildar & ALT, Karad.
The order of the Tehsildar is as under:

"The land bearing S.No. 57/1 measuring A.1 G. 24 assessed at Rs 7-81 now Gat No. 252 and S. No.
56/1 measuring A.2 G.20 Pk. O-30 assessed at Rs 11-06 now numbered as Gat No. 249 are owned
by the above landlord. The enquiry was made in this case previously in the year 1980 and it was
stayed as civil suit was pending in the Court. Case was again fixed on 10-1-1985. The tenant has
given statement that he will produce rent receipts on 21-1-1985. However, the landlord and the
advocate on behalf of the tenant gave applications for adjournments from time to time. The last date
for hearing was fixed on 18-5-1985. The tenant remained absent on that day. Statement of the peon
to that effect recorded is in the case papers. This shows that the tenant is not interested in purchase
of these lands. The purchase of land by the tenant is therefore declared ineffective."

3. It is not disputed that on 22-5-1985 when the above quoted order was passed the appellant was
not present before the Tehsildar. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the order was
required to be communicated to him under the provisions of Section 32-G(3) of the Act. This was
not done. He came to know about the order after a period of about 8 years. He filed appeal against
the order of the Tehsildar which was dismissed on the ground of delay. The revision filed by the
appellant was also dismissed. The High Court upheld the orders of the courts below.

4. Ordinarily, we would not have interfered in a case like this because the appellant approached the
appellate authority after a very long period. But keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the
case and particularly the fact that the appellant has been in possession of the land for over five
decades and that he was also in possession on the appointed date, we are inclined to interfere. What
has weighed with us is that the Additional Tehsildar has not even gone into the merits of the case.
Even if the appellant was not present before him, the Tehsildar should have gone into the merits of
the case on the basis of the record and come to the conclusion whether the appellant was entitled to
purchase the land or not.

5. We allow the appeal; set aside the order of the Additional Tehsildar dated 22-5-1985 and
subsequent orders of the appellate authority; revisional authority and the High Court. We remand
the case back to the Additional Tehsildar & ALT, Karad, State of Maharashtra for fresh decision on
merits after hearing the parties.

6. In case the Additional Tehsildar comes to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to purchase
the land he should be put into possession of the land immediately. We direct the Tehsildar to
complete the proceedings finally within four months.

7. Parties to appear before the Tehsildar on 24-12-1996.

8. No costs.