JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 9-10-2001 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, rejecting the application for review of its judgment dated 30-10-2000 passed in Revision Application filed on 19-1-1992. By the impugned judgment application for review by the earlier judgment has been rejected. The judgment in the revision application was to the effect that the revision application filed by the petitioner against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pandharpur dated 18-11-1992 was dismissed. Order dated 18-11-1992 of the Sub-Divisional Officer was in the appeal filed by the petitioners being Tenancy Appeal No. 99 of 1988 against the order dated 13-6-1988 passed by Tenancy Aval Karkun in Tenancy Case No. 29 of 1976. The said appeal was dismissed and the order of the Aval Karkun dismissing the application of the petitioners for resumption of land for personal bona fide cultivation was confirmed.

3. The impugned judgments are sought to be challenged on the ground that the claim of the petitioners for resumption of land for personal cultivation has been rejected in contravention of the provisions of section 23(F)(1)(a) (sic 32-F(1)(a)) read with 32(1)(1-A) and section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 hereinafter called as "the said Act". Reliance is also placed in the decision of the learned Single Judge in the matter of (Rangrao Nivritti Lad and others v. Vishnu Joti Thorbole and another)1, 2001(1) Bom.C.R. 157. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent having failed to exercise his right to purchase within the prescribed period under section 31 read with section 32(F)(1)(a) of the said Act, the respondent has ceased to be the tenant or deemed purchaser in relation to the suit property and therefore the application filed by the petitioners under section 33-B read with 29 of the said Act, ought to have been allowed in terms of provisions of section 32-F read with section 32-P of the said Act.

4. On the other hand the learned advocate for the respondent drawing attention to the provisions of section 32 and particularly 1st Proviso to subsection (1) thereof submitted that in view of the failure on the part of the petitioners to secure favourable order in the proceedings under section 29 of the said Act, the respondent has become deemed purchaser of the properly and therefore no fault can be found with the impugned orders.

5. There cannot be a dispute about the proposition canvassed by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that in case of failure on the part of the tenant to exercise the rights conferred upon him in relation to the purchase of the property, the consequences provided under section 32-P are required to follow and the authorities in that regard are required to take appropriate action. Indeed, the decision of the learned Single Judge sought to be relied upon is clear in that regard. However, the fact remains that in the case in hand, the petitioners had chosen to take out necessary proceedings under section 29 of the said Act for obtaining the possession of the suit land from the respondents. It is also a matter of record that the petitioners have failed to secure favourable relief in the said proceedings. Proviso to section 32(1) of the said Act reads thus :

"Provided that if an application made by the landlord under section 29 for obtaining possession of the land has been rejected by the Mamlatdar or by the Collector in appeal or in revision by the (Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal) under the provisions of this Act, the tenant shall be deemed to have purchased the land on the date on which the final order of rejection is passed. The date on which the final order of rejection is passed is hereinafter referred to as "the postponed date"."

6. Apparently in case of failure on the part of the landlord to secure favourable relief in the proce

Click Here to Read the rest of this document