Judgment

RANGANATHAN, J.:- This is an appeal from a judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing a petition filed by Dadu Rau Yelavade (now represented by his legal representatives) under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. One Anant Gopal Prabhu ( Prabhu , for short ) was the owner of 3 acres 25 gunthas of land bearing Survey No. 54 in village Ingali in Hatakanangale Taluka of Kolhapur district. The lands were under the cultivation of one Rau, who was the father of the petitioner before the High Court. The landlord instituted proceedings under S. 31 read with S. 29 of she Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) against the tenant Rau. During the pendency of these proceedings, Rau died and his tenancy rights were inherited by his four sons, Dadu (predecessor of the present appellants), Mahadu, Ganpati and Shripati. These proceedings came to an end eventually by an order dated 24-5-1961, on which date the petition under S. 29 react with S. 31 was dismissed. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated by the Tahsildar under S. 32G of the Tenancy Act. This was sometime in 1969 and will be referred to later. In the meantime, on 27-4-1961, the landlord Prabhu had decided to sell the suit land to the fourth son of Ran, who effected a partition of the property and Mahadu, one of the other sons of Ran, sold his share in the suit land in favour of the present respondent Patel by a registered documentdated May 11, 1966. In view of this, the proceedings under S.32G, initiated by the Tahsildar, came to an end with an order of the Tahsildar declaring the fourth son of Rau as the purchaser. His order was passed on 21-12-1969. After discussing the questions whether the tenants were in lawful possession of the suit land, whether they were entitled to purchase the suit land and whether the purchase price fixed in the voluntary sale between Prabhu and Raus fourth son was reasonable and whether the sale effected between the landlord and tenants could be regularised, the Tahsildar decided to regularise the purchase of the suit land by the tenants, and directed that a certificate under S. 32M read with S. 43 of the Act should be issued to the tenants Dadu Rau and his brothers. In the course of his order, he also discussed the alleged sale in respect of Patel, on whom notice had been served and who had participated in the proceedings. He came to the conclusion that the sale effected by Mahadu in favour of Patel, being contrary to law, was illegal and directed that his name should be removed from the revenue records.

3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner, one of the sons of Rau, had instituted a suit against Patel for an injunction restraining him from obstructing his possession of the property. Patel resisted the suit claiming to be the purchaser of share of Mahadu and, therefore, entitled to remain in possession as a co-owner along with the petitioner. In view of the rival contentions of the, parties, the Civil Court referred the following two issues for determination of the tenancy authorities as contemplated by provisions of S. 85A of the Act:

(1) Was the plaintiff a tenant of the suit property and did he subsequently become its deemed purchaser?

(2) Is the sale deed by Mahadu to Patel invalid under the Act?

4. In the proceedings before the revenue authorities, the Tahsildar answered both questions in the affirmative. He held that the plaintiffs were the deemed purchasers of the land on 1-4 -1959 and he also came to the conclusion that the transfer by Mahadu in favour of Patel was hit by the provisions of S. 43 of the Tenancy Act. According to him, therefore, Patel had no right or title to the portion of the land in suit which Mahadu had sold him. This order was confirmed in appeal, on 23-10-71, by the Assistant Collector.

5. Patel thereupon filed a revision before the Revenue Tribunal which set aside the order of the authorities below and held that the sale deed by Mahadu in favour of respondent No. 1 was not in