When the appellants learnt about it, they filed an appeal before the Collector.
The matter was companysidered by several authorities under the Act, who ultimately rejected the appellants case.
In 1965 a further order was passed in the case wherein the Agricultural Lands Tribunal held the purchase by Mugaji on 3.6.1960 as lawful and upheld the claim of the appellants.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.8.1972 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.
They also chal lenged the earlier order passed against Mugaji under Sec.
3 filed a revision application before the Revenue Tribunal.
The Additional Mamlatdar by his order dated 8.2.
They did number implead the appellants and suppressed the fact of the sale on 3.6.1960 in favour of Mugaji.
The appellants alleged that by this date, i.e., 3.6.1960 the land held by Mugaji was within the ceiling area following a partition between him and his sons on 13.10.1959.
On his death in 1962, his heirs the appellants were substituted.
Mugaji, subsequently, made a claim to the Land on another basis.
950 N of 1973.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The order was upheld in appeal, and the respondent No.
32G. The Collector remanded the matter on 25.9.1963.
32G, wherein the right of Mugaji as a tenant was nega tived, upheld the claim of the present respondents by his order dated 28.4.1963.
1972 which is under challenge in this appeal by Special Leave.
The Agricultural Lands Tribu nal and Additional Mamlatdar relying on the enquiry under Sec.
Pinaki Misra, P.H. Parekh and Ms. Sunita Sharma for the Appellants.
The appellants are the heirs of one Mugaji Laxman Padule, who was the tenant of the land for about 3 decades before the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act was enacted.
2826 of 1969.
The respondents moved the authorities under the Act in 1963 for recognising their claim.
V .N. Ganpule and V.D. Khanna for the Respondents.
Under the provisions of the Act, Mugaji was enti tled to purchase the land on satisfaction of certain companydi tions.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA, J. The subject matter of this appeal is 13.30 acres of land in Sholapur District, within the State of Maharashtra.
Admittedly he did number satisfy these companyditions and said so before the authorities companycerned.
Thus, having lost the case, the appellants moved the Bombay High Court, and their application was rejected by a short judg ment passed on 2.8.
