this Court gave the following directions The order passed by the High Court is set aside, and the proceeding stands, remanded to the Tahsildar with the direction that he do determine determine whether Dadarao companytinued to remain a protected tenant till tile date on which he claimed to exercise his right to purchase the land and whether Nivrutti acquired the rights or a protected tenant and if so, whether he was entitled to exercise the right to purchase the land, and if both Dadarao and Nivrutti were entitled to purchase the land or any part thereof the extent to which each of them was entitled and to what extent.
He has obtained a certificate as a protected tenant under Section 37A in respect of 6 acres and 16 gunthas of land on 7th of September, 1957.
The dispute related to 10 acres and 34 gunthas of land in Survey No.
These directions were given because there was a dispute between the original appellant Nivrutti and the original respondent Dadarao in respect of the right to claim protected tenancy under the Hyderabad Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and the benefit under Section 38 flowing therefrom.
D E R By an earlier judgment order of this Court dated llth March 1969 in Civil Appeal No .306 of 1966 between the the original appellant and the original respondents in the same proceedings.
Ultimately, the entries were companyrected and a certificate as a protected tenant under Section 34 of the said Act was granted by the Deputy Collector or, 19.12.56.
He relied upon Revenue entries in his favour as a protected tenant since 1950 51.
He had made an application for companyrection of revenue entries of subsequent year.
The original appellant claimed to be in possession of the said land on 12.3.66 when Section 37A was introduced in the said Act.
Sutardara in village Pathan Mandwa Taluka Mominabad, District Bihar.
No order as to companyts.
The original respondent claimed to be a protected tenant in respect of the said land.
