Respondents Nos.
Appeal filed against the order of the Tribunal was dismissed by the Deputy Collector, land Reforms, Latur.
The Tribunal held that respondents Nos.
3 and numberright to sell it without following the procedure prescribed by Section 48 of the Hyderabad Agricultural Lands and Tenancy Act and Rule 31 A of the Rules made under that Act.
Having gone through the orders passed by Tehsildar, Latur, Deputy Collector, latur, and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the material on record we are of the view that the sale being void the Revenue Tribunal was right in allowing the revision application.
17.2.76 executed by the father of respondent number 3 Balwant Rao in favour of appellant Vishwanath as null and void was dismissed by the Agricultural Land Tribunal, Latur.
1 and 2 were protected tenants of the land and, therefore father of respondent No.
1 and 2 for declaring the sate dt.
1 and 2 were protected tenants and therefore without companyplying with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, numbersale of the land companyld have been validly made.
Nanavati.
J. An Application filed by respondents Nos.
