A.B. Naik, J.

1. 1. The two petitioners, protected tenants (hereinafter referred to as "protected tenants") of Land Survey No. 38/1 and 39/1 admeasuring 13A 11G and 21A 20G respectively, are challenging the order dated 15th October 1987, passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Aurangabad (for short "the Tribunal"), allowing Revision Application filed by the respondents, on the ground that there is no evidence of declaration of ownership in favour of the petitioners in respect of Land Survey No. 38/1 and 39/1 and, as such, there is no question to put them in possession of the land.

2. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this Writ Petition, the facts borne out from the record, are to be mentioned :

Land Survey No. 38/1 and 39/1 situated at village Sangvi - Benak Tq. Mukhed Dist. Nanded was of the ownership of the one Devidasrao Bhavanidasrao Deshmukh. On the enforcement of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") the names of the petitioners came to be recorded in the Register of Protected Tenants as per Section 34 of the Act. It is the contention of the petitioners that as they were protected tenants of the lands they were entitled to get the ownership as per the provisions of the Act. However, they were dispossessed from the land by the landholder they could not get the benefits of the Act. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application for restoration of possession taking recourse to the provisions of 38-E(1) Explanation of the Act. It is contended that the notified date for transfer of ownership of the land for Nanded District was 25th May, 1957 and they were protected tenants of the lands on the notified date and, as such, they are entitled for the ownership under Section 38 E of the Act. The proceeding for declaration of the ownership was taken by the Naib Tahsildar and by his order dated 23rd April (year is not mentioned in Exh. A : Page 7). The relevant portion of the order reads thus :

"Parties absent. DPT (Dispossessed Protected

Tenant) cannot be declared owner of G. S. No.

38/1 has been sold to Dhondiba s/o Baliram

after obtaining permission from the Deputy

Collector, Degloor entry which has been taken

in the mutation register which is approved by

Naib Tahsildar."

3. The petitioners approached the Deputy Collector with request to put them in possession as they were the protected tenants of the lands but were not in possession on the notified date. On receipt of this application by the Deputy Collector, a notice came to be issued to the respondents who were purchasers from the original owner, (hereinafter referred to as "the purchasers"), appeared and contested the proceedings. The purchasers contended that the protected tenants were not in possession of the lands and the landowner, after obtaining permission from the Tenancy authorities, have purchased the lands and, as such, they are not entitled for possession, as prayed. The Additional Tahsildar heard the parties and by his order dated 24-1-1984 ordered that the purchasers were in possession of land Survey No. 38/1 and 39/1 unauthorisedly, to the extent of 12A 6G and the possession be handed over to the tenant -Bhagat Bakshu. While allowing application in respect of land Survey No. 38/2 and 39/2, the Tahsildar has not ordered the possession so far as Sy. No. 38/1 and 39/2 are concerned. The Additional Tahsildar has observed thus :

"I have gone through the copies of the documents i.e.

permission letter issued from the Deputy Collector,

Degloor, it is seen that Dhondiba Baliram has

purchased the land S. No. 38/1 39/1 measuring as 13

acres 11 gunthas and 21 acres 20 gunthas

respectively, after obtaining this permission. The

respondents purchased above lands so the question of

invalid transaction does not arise. Further I have

perused original work sheet and the Tenancy Register

in which it is seen that a note has been written that as

per endorsement of Naib Tahsildar, the names of

Bhagat Bha