(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.

(3) A short question arises for our consideration, as to whether the land alleged to be purchased by the appellant tenant as deemed purchaser on 1-4- 1957 could be surrendered to the landlord under Section 32-P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short "the Act") when the proceedings under Section 32-G of the Act were declared ineffective by order of Additional Tahsildar on account of his absence on a particular day before the Additional Tahsildar. That order stood confirmed in the hierarchy of proceedings up to the High Court. Thereafter, the appellant came before this Court and this Court by its order dated 22/11/1996 allowed the appeal and quashed the orders under Section 32-G(3) of the Act making the purchase ineffective and remanded the proceedings to the Additional Tahsildar for fresh decision under Section 32-G of the Act. It was also directed that in case the Additional Tahsildar comes to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to purchase the land he should be put into possession of the land immediately. This direction seems to ha