JUDGMENT

SHARMA, J. :— The subject matter of this appeal is 13.30 acres of land in Sholapur District, within the State of Maharashtra. 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 Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enacted. Under the provisions of the Act, Mugaji was entitled to purchase the land on satisfaction of certain conditions. Admittedly he did not satisfy these conditions and said so before the authorities concerned. The landlords who are now represented by the respondents, were claiming possession of the area under the Act. Mugaji, subsequently, made a claim to the Land on another basis. On his death in 1962, his heirs the appellants were substituted. The matter was considered by several authorities under the Act, who ultimately rejected the appellants case. The appellants, thereafter moved the Bombay High Court by an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which was rejected by the impugned judgment.

2. The procedure for the tenant to purchase the land is laid down in Sec. 32-G of the Act. It enjoins the Agricultural Lands Tribunal constituted under S. 67 to publish a public notice calling upon the tenants, the landlords and any other interested person to appear before it on a specified date. The Tribunal is also required to issue individual notices to the landlords and the tenants, and thereafter to decide the competing cases. Sec. 32-A limits the rights of a tenant holding other Lands to such area only which will raise his holding to the extent of the ceiling area. Admittedly Mugaji was already possessed of lands beyond the ceiling area and he, therefore, did not claim to have purchased the land in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In a situation where a tenant is not able to successfully claim the land, it has to be disposed of in the manner provided in S. 32-P, which states that the former tenant would be summarily evicted and the land would be surrendered to the landlord. In the present case the land in question, thus, went to the landlords. According to the case of the appellants, on a partition in the family of the landlords the disputed land was allotted to the share of the respondents 2 to 4 and Mugaji purchased the same for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- from them on 3-6-1960. 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.

3. The respondents moved the authorities under the Act in 1963 for recognising their claim. They did not implied the appellants and suppressed the fact of the sale on 3-6-1960 in favour of Mugaji. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal and Additional Mamlatdar relying on the enquiry under S. 32-G, wherein the right of Mugaji as a tenant was negatived, upheld the claim of the present respondents by his order dated 28-4-1963. When the appellants learnt about it, they filed an appeal before the Collector. They also challenged the earlier order passed against Mugaji under S. 32-G. The Collector remanded the matter on 25-9-1963. The Additional Mamlatdar by his order dated 8-2-1964 observed that since the tenant had purchased the suit land from the landlords, the proceeding was fit to be dropped and it was appropriate to deal with the case under S. 84-C of the Act, Sec. 84-C states that in respect of a transfer of any land made after 1955 if the Mamlatdar has reason to believe that the transfer was invalid on account of any of the provisions of the Act, he would issue notice and hold an enquiry and decide whether the transfer is invalid or not. In 1966 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. The order was upheld in appeal, and the respondent No. 3 filed a revision application before the Revenue Tribunal. It w