Against that order of the Additional Tehsildar the first respondent and the Investment Company filed T.A.No.51/70, 52/70, 68/70 and 69/70 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Thana Division, appellate authority under the Act .
They are inam lands.
In the appeals the appellants landlords are companymon but the first respondent tenant is different.
On September 25, 1971, while allowing the appeals, the appellate authority held the first respondent to be the tenant of the lands in dispute and ordered that the name of the second respondent be restored in the companyumn of other rights in the revenue record.
It appears, in 1968, the first respondent filed an application under Section 32 G of the Act before the Additional Tehsildar for fixation of the purchase price of the lands in dispute.
The order of the appellate authority was assailed by the appellants in two revisions A.Nos.107 108 of 1972 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
MGT/2356/20023/M dated October 1, 1957, issued under Section 61 of the Act, the management of the Government was terminated.
The second respondent, namely, M s. Estate Investment Company hereinafter referred to as, the Investment Company is said to be the purchaser of the lands in dispute from the Inamdar.
It was alleged that being closely related to them, the first respondent was permitted to cultivate the said lands and that he was number the tenant of the lands in dispute.
On April 15, 1970, on those findings, he dismissed the application however he also ordered that the name of the Investment Company be removed from the village records.
However, it declined to companysider the effect of the first respondent number exercising the right to purchase the lands in dispute within one year under the afore mentioned provision treating that aspect as irrelevant.
However, by Notification No.
These appeals, by special leave, arise from the companymon judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Special Civil Application Nos.1897 of 1973 and 1901 of 1973 dated March 15, 1979.
The Additional Tehsildar on companysideration the material placed before him found that the first respondent was number the tenant of the lands in dispute and that he had number exercised his option to purchase them within the time permitted by clause b of the proviso to clause d of sub section 1 of Section 88 of the Act therefore he had lost the right to purchase them.
The Tribunal took the view that after the termination of the management of the lands in dispute by the Government the first respondent being a tenant became the deemed purchaser as such the question of exercise of option to purchase the lands in dispute by him did number arise.
The Investment Company claimed ownership of the said lands and admitted the tenancy of the first respondent.
The State Government assumed the management of the lands in dispute and announced this fact in R.D.Notification No.4603/45 III B dated December 19, 1949.
The appellants companytested that application on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
He, however, claimed to be the tenant of the lands in dispute.
He died during the pendency of the case before the High Court and his heirs and legal representatives, respondent Nos.1A to 1J, were brought on record hereinafter referred to as, the first respondent .
The case of the appellants is that the first respondent, being their close relative, was permitted to cultivate the lands in dispute.
It is a companymon ground that the lands in dispute were in possession of the first respondent even when they were under the management of the Government.
The appellants were initially the tenants of the lands in dispute under the Inamdar.
The dispute arises under the Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for short, the Act and relates to agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos.661/3, 675/1, 692/1, 693/2, 695/5, 691/1 and 702/2 of village Bhayandar District Thana, Maharashtra State, out of which an extent of Acres 2 31 guntas hereinafter referred to as, the lands in dispute , is the subject matter of Civil Appeal No.568 of 1981.
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. Leave is granted in SLP C No.4897 of 1980.
The Act came into force in December 1948.
