Respondent 3 held that the appellant ought to have issued numberice under Section 32 F within the time as prescribed and numbernotice having been issued within the time as prescribed, the appellants have lost right of purchase.
In the year 2008, when the appellants came to know that the landlady has died and in her place, name of Respondent 1 has been mutated, they filed an application on 5 9 2008 before Respondent 2 Additional Tahsildar A.L.T. Ratnagiri, Maharashtra for fixing the purchase price under Section 32 G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the 1948 Act .
Respondent 1 filed reply and opposed the said application.
Aggrieved against the judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, writ petitions were filed by the appellants and several other similarly situated tenants.
All the writ petitions were dismissed by companymon judgment dated 1 8 2014 Arjun Hari Kamble v. Anant Mahadev Sawant, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 4931 of the High Court, against which judgment, these appeals have been filed.
Aggrieved against the order dated 9 9 2011, Respondent 1 filed an appeal under Section 74 of the 1948 Act before Respondent 3, Sub Divisional Officer, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra.
There were other revisions filed by several other tenants who were aggrieved by the order of the Sub Divisional Officer.
Respondent 3 allowed the appeal vide its order dated 8 1 2013.
The appellants, aggrieved by the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, filed a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
Proceedings under Section 32 G for declaring the appellants as purchasers were initiated during the lifetime of the landlady and the same were suspended on 8 1 1964 during the lifetime of the landlady being a widow.
Smt Indirabai Balwant Sawant died on 7 5 1999.
The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was amended by Act 15 of 1957.
The name of Respondent 1 was mutated in the revenue records on 29 2 2000, with regard to which numbernotice was issued to the appellants, hence they were number aware of either the death of Indirabai or mutation in favour of Respondent 1.
The predecessor of the appellants were tenants prior to 1956 1957 i.e. prior to 1 4 1957.
On 12 5 1975, Smt Indirabai Balwant Sawant executed last will and testament in favour of Anant Mahadev Sawant, Respondent 1.
Respondent 2 fixed the purchase price and directed the appellants to deposit the same to enable issue of sale certificate in favour of the appellants.
The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by a companymon order dated 20 4 2013 dismissed the revisions and companyfirmed the order of the Sub Divisional Officer.
The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held that applicants were under legal obligation to give intimation expressing their desire to purchase within time stipulated under Section 32 F, which having number been given, numberright of purchase is available to applicants.
Respondent 2 held that predecessors of the appellants were tenants prior to 1956 1957.
Respondent 2 allowed the application of the appellants by order dated 9 9 2011.
The proceedings for declaring the appellants as purchaser under Section 32 G were initiated during the lifetime of the landlady, Smt Indirabai Balwant Sawant but the mutation Entry No.
