The duty of the Tribunal to recover the unpaid purchase price as arrears of land revenue, as highlighted by the provisions of Section 32-K and Section 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

( 1 ) BY this Petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Nathu Lotu Buwa has challenged the judgment and order dated 29th April, 1989 passed by the learned member Maharashtra revenue Tribunal, Mumbai (in short "the mrt"), who allowed the Revision filed by the respondent, and set aside the order dated 29- 07-1988 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, amalner (in short "sdo" ). (The petitioner and the respondent hereinafter will be referred to as "tenant" and "landlady" respectively ).

( 2 ) TO understand the controversy raised in this petition, it will be appropriate to refer to the facts emerging from the record. Before narrating facts in detail, it is to be noted that the original petitioner died during the pendency of this Writ Petition and his heirs and legal representatives are brought on record, vide an order dated 19-01-2004 and now, the petition is being prosecuted by the heirs.

( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the deceased-petitioner was a tenant of land Block no. 351 admeasuring 2 H, 52 R situated at chopada (proper) Dist. Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as the "land"), Ganpat Mahar was the owner and after his death, his widow sakhubai, succeeded to the estate of deceased ganpat. It is also not disputed that Nathu Lotu buwa was a tenant in possession of the land, on 01-04-1957 and, accordingly, he became "deemed purchaser" of it. Thereafter, the proceedings were initiated to fix the purchase price accordingly, the purchase price was fixed u/s. 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The Agricultural Lands Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") fixed the price of the land in the year 1963 determining the price of the land at Rs. 3,090/- and it was to be paid in 12 equal installments by the tenant. On fixation of price, necessary entry was taken in the revenue record. Mutation Entry no. 20787, evidencing this fact that the tenant has purchased the land. It is not disputed that the tenant has not paid the full purchase price as ordered, but paid part of it i. e. Rs. 2655. 75. Thereafter, the tenant did not deposit the installments. As the tenant did not pay the remaining amount of purchase price as per the installments, widow of Ganpat, i. e. landlady approached the Tahsildar, Chopada, by initiating proceedings for declaration that as the purchase price has not been paid in full, therefore, the purchase became ineffective. The application was filed on 7th April, 1987. On filing of the application, the Tahsildar, issued notice to the parties and directed them to appear before him on 10th June, 1987. The tenant to whom the notice was issued, refused to accept the notice. Pursuant to the notice the landlady appeared and filed her written statement, the tenant did not appear. The landlady who has stated before the Tahsildar that the tenant has paid only five installments of purchase price, but the balance price, according to her, was not paid. The last installment was paid in the year 1984 and, thereafter, no amount whatsoever was paid. It is contended by her that she has no other source of income to earn livelihood; hence she needed the land for her cultivation and, as such, she issued a notice to the tenant on 25th March, 1987 calling upon the tenant to deliver the vacant possession of the land on the ground that the tenant has committed default in payment of purchase price. As there was no response from the tenant, the Tahsildar proceeded to consider the application filed by the landlady and noticing the provisions of Section 32-K of the Act, he came to the conclusion that the tenant has committed default from the year 1984 onwards, therefore, the purchase has become ineffective. The Tahsildar for some erroneous assumption, proceeded to consider the provisions of the Restoration of Lands to scheduled Tribe Act, 1975 and it was found that landlady was a Scheduled Caste and, the tahsilcai on considering the provis