The revision application was thus allowed and the order passed by the Appellate Authority was set aside and that of the Tehsildar was restored.
Feeling aggrieved by this order of the High Court, the appellants preferred special leave petition in this companyrt.
MRT P 14 of 1981 by which the Tribunal had companyfirmed the order passed by the Tehsildar in Tenancy Case No.32 FG/54/78 dated 31st August, 1978.
The facts leading to the filing of these appeals in short may be stated as follows Agriculture land for short the aforesaid land bearing Survey No.175/1 admeasuring 2 acres and 11 gunthas situated at Village Biwadi, Tal Purandhar, District Pune was owned by Sadashiv Purandhare, father of the respondent No.1 Chintaman Sadashiv.
Being aggrieved, the landlord respondent No.1 filed a revision petition before the MRT, Pune which was allowed by the tribunal by an order dated 30th August, 1983 and against this order the tenants had filed a writ petition in the High Court of judicature at Bombay, which was dismissed by the impugned order in respect of which special leave petition was filed and leave was granted.
This termination numberice was issued within one year of attaining the age of majority.
By the order dated 1st October 1997, the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition in which the appellants prayed for quashing a judgment and order of Maharasthra Revenue Tribunal in short MRT dated 30th August, 1983 in Revision Application No.
Babu Vithu Gaikwad whose heirs and legal representatives are the appellants in this Court was the original tenant in respect of the aforesaid land.
In the application under Article 227 of the Constitution, a prayer was also made by the appellants to restore the order passed by the Appellate Court in Tenancy Appeal No.56 of 1979 dated 27th October, 1980.
Since the application under Section 29 of the Act was time barred, the proceedings taken out by the landlord respondent No.1 were withdrawn on 5th September, 1964.
Aggrieved by this order, the tenant preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Pune and by an order dated 27th October, 1980 he allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to Additional Tehsildar for holding an enquiry under Section 32G to 32R of the Act for fixing the price for purchase in accordance with law.
However, on the date of mutation, Ashoklal was a minor.
The tenant filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer which was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Additional Tehsildar for fresh disposal.
After one year of such withdrawal, Babu Vithu Gaikwad the tenant had filed an application under Section 32F read with Section 32G of the Act on 2nd August, 1965.
On the tillers day, i.e., 1st April, 1957 the respondent No.1 was a minor.
He attained majority on 6th October, 1960.
The landlord respondent No.1 had failed to take out proceedings under Section 29 of the Act until he filed an application on 27th March, 1962.
In these proceedings, on 6th October, 1967, a statement of the tenant was recorded that he was willing to purchase the disputed land.
Janardhan, the father of the respondent was admittedly the tenant of this land on 1st April, 1957.
In companypliance with Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 hereinafter called the Act , the respondent No.1 issued numberice to Babu Vithu Gaikwad since deceased for termination of his tenancy in respect of the aforesaid land.
After a month by his order dated 31st August, 1978, the Additional Tehsildar held that under Section 32F the right of the tenant to purchase the aforesaid land was forfeited and, hence, directed that proceedings companyld be initiated under Section 32P of the Act.
Before his death, landlord Tarachand had executed a will and bequeathed the suit land to Ashoklal Gugale who got his name mutated in the revenue record in respect of the suit land in his favour as owner.
The additional Tehsildar rejected the application of the tenant by his order dated 28th January, 1973.
Feeling aggrieved by this order of the Revisional Authority, the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court which came to be registered as Writ Petition No.139 of 1984 and by the impugned order the High Court dismissed the writ petition and held that there was numbererror of jurisdiction number was there any error apparent on the face of the record and accordingly the order passed by the Tehsildar and affirmed by the MRT was perfectly valid and did number warrant any interference.
Landlord Tarachand died on August 12, 1959.
A partition of the aforesaid land was affected by the deceased father of the respondents by which the disputed land was allotted to him.
The Tribunal went into the records and held that Tarachand was the recorded landlord and being under numberdisability and Janardhan being tenant of the land, by operation of law, became deemed purchaser and all subsequent proceedings were null, void and numberest.
The said Janardhan applied to the Tribunal for purchase of the land and fixation of price of the same.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. These appeals are preferred against the final order 1st October, 1997 and order dated 15th September, 1999 passed in A.No.8320 of 1997 by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.139 of 1984.
