The Additional Mamlatdar instituted suo motu proceedings under Section 32 1B of the Act of the ground that the tenant was in possession of the lands on the appointed day and he was dispossessed prior to the tillers day, that is, 1st April 1957 by the landlords without following due procedure of law and the lands in question were in possession of the landlords of their successors in interest on 31st July 1969 and, therefore, the respondents were liable to restore the possession of the lands to the heirs of the tenant even though the tenant in the meantime had died in 1959.
As all the requisite companydition for applicability of Section 32 1B of the Act were found to have been satisfied the Special Additional Tahsildar, Nasik by his order dated 20th August 1971 directed the respondent landlords to restore the lands to the heirs of the tenant under Section 32 1B of the Act for personal cultivation.
88, 89 and 90 situated at Village Trimbak in Nasik Taluka in Maharashtra State.
The Additional Mamlatdar, the Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held in favor of the heirs of the tenant and ordered restoration of possession of the lands from the respondent landlords.
It is thereafter, that the respondents, aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Tribunal dated 2nd March 1973, carried the matter in appeal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to the High Court of Bombay.
He was dispossessed by the landlords prior to 1st April 1957 otherwise than under an appropriate order under Section 29 of the Act.
On the appointed day, that is, 15th June 1955 the said tenant was in occupation of these lands.
The said order was challenged by the landlords by filing Tenancy Appeal which came to be dismissed by Leave Reserve Deputy Collector, Nasik on 10th January 1972.
One Savaliram Gotiram Teli was the tenant of three agricultural lands being Survey Nos.
It is the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court which is brought in challenge in the present proceedings as numbered earlier.
The High Court of Bombay by the judgment under appeal took a companytrary view and held that such proceedings are maintainable only for the tenant companycerned and number for his heirs.
That Revision Application was also dismissed.
After dispossessing the tenant the respondent landlords remained in possession of the said lands till 31st July 1969.
Respondent landlords carried the matter in revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under Section ? ?
70 of the Act.
Respondents were the landlords of the said lands.
A few relevant facts may be numbered at the outset.
