A.B. Naik, J.

1. 1. A short question arises in this Writ Petition, as to whether the landlord who has obtained possession of the land by dispossessing the protected tenant, can be evicted by the Collector or that purpose the Deputy Collector, on an application filed by dispossessed- tenant under section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950; ( hereinafter referred to as " the Act"). The petitioners are the heirs of original tenant, who died during pendency of this proceeding, will be referred to as " the tenant" hereinafter.

2. It is not disputed that Land Survey No: 262/A to the extent of 8A 3 G situated at village Kuntur (hereinafter referred to as " the land") was of the ownership of the respondent Dattatraya @ Dattopant Ganpatrao { who hereinafter will be referred to as " the landholder"}. The tenant(i.e. Datta

Manika) undisputedly was a protected tenant of the land and declared owner of the land under the provisions of the Act. It is also not disputed that on 26th November, 1980 in File No: KTR -91/60 the Tahsildar/Agril. Land Tribunal, Biloli has fixed the price of the land and issued the order accordingly. From the said order, it is clear that the disputed land stands transferred in favour of the tenant on 25th May 1957 under the provisions of Section 38E of the Act and became owner of the land.

2. 3. On 3rd September 1983, the tenant made an application for restoration of possession of the land under section 98 of the Act, with prayer that the landholder who obtained possession illegally from him be dispossessed and he be put to possession of the land. He contended in the said that he being the dispossessed protected tenant who become owner of the land under the provisions of the Act. As such, he is declared owner, he is entitled to possession of the land.

3. 4. In support of his contention, the tenant has submitted copy of Panchnama conducted in File No: K/59/62, wherein it is disclosed that the tenant was put in possession.

4. 5. On receipt of the application, notice was served to the landholder who, inspite of repeated chances given, has not filed any written statement/say, but produced some documents objecting the claim of the tenant for possession. During the enquiry, the Deputy Collector recorded a statement of the tenant and two witnesses, namely, Kisan and Nagorao who were initially made parties to the proceedings. Accordingly, after the conclusion of the enquiry, the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Nanded by his judgment and order dated 28th April,1986 allowed the application filed by the tenant and directed that he should be put in possession of the land, evicting the landholder.

5. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector ( Land Reforms) Nanded, the landholder filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ( for short MRT") being Case No: 112/A/78/Nanded. The MRT after hearing both the parties, found that the tenant who was declared owner, has not paid the price and as he has not paid the price and has expressed that he is not ready to purchase the land and, therefore, he found that the tenant is not willing to purchase the land and also not to deposited the price. The learned Designated Member of the MRT placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in 1983 Mh.L.J. 434. The MRT came to the conclusion that the tenant is not entitled to the possession of the land by dispossessing the landholder and accordingly, by the judgment and order dated 5.1.1988, the learned Designated Member of the MRT Aurangabad allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector on 28th April,1986 and dismissed the application filed by the tenant. This order is the subject-matter of challenge in this Writ Petition.

6. 7. Shri A.G. Godhamgaonkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner/s assailed the judgment of the MRT, inter alia, contending that, it is not disputed by the landholder that the tenant is a prot