1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad ("MRT"), in Appeal NO.121/A/96/Nanded dated 26.11.1987.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 had filed an application bearing No.85/TNC/98/CR-15 before learned Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Nanded under Section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 ("Act of 1950") for eviction of the present petitioners. It came to be rejected on 13.4.1986. Respondents 1 and 2 had challenged the said order by filing an appeal No.121/A/1986 before the MRT. This appeal was allowed on 26.11.1987, by which the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) was directed to hand over possession of land S.No.18 to the extent of 18 acres and 16 gunthas ("suit land"), situated at village Hasrapur, Taluka and District Nanded by evicting the original respondents as per the provisions of law. This order, as said above, is questioned in the present writ petition.

4. It is not in dispute that the suit land was initially owned by one Sitaram, who after his death, is succeeded by his brother Ramdas. It is also not in dispute that on 18.2.1966, the petitioners had purchased the suit property by registered sale deed from Ramdas. It is alleged by the petitioners that this sale deed is attested by one Kisan. It is contention of respondents 1 and 2 that they are legal heirs of said Kisan, who has expired in 1981. However, respondents 1 and 2 are not admitting the fact of said Kisan attesting the sale deed dated 18.2.1966 in favour of the petitioners - purchasers. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners are referred as "purchasers" and respondents 1 and 2 are referred as "tenants" hereinafter.

5. Learned Deputy Collector referred the documents and observed that Kisan’s name is appearing in column No.9 of the tenancy register. According to him, said Kisan was in possession of the suit land upto 1963-64. Erstwhile land owner Ramdas was in possession of the suit property in the years 1964-65 and 1965-66 and thereafter, he sold the suit property to the purchasers for the consideration of Rs.14,000/-. Learned Deputy Collector also referred to 7/12 extracts of the year 1966-67 i.e. entries in the record of rights post sale transaction in favour of the purchasers. Learned Deputy Collector did not accept the contention of the purchasers that Kisan was servant of original owner Sitaram. The Deputy Collector held that possession of Kisan as a tenant was upto 1963-64. He further observed that Kisan left the possession of the suit land since 1964-65. Learned Deputy Collector has considered the conduct of Kisan, who died in the year 1981, that till his death he did not raise any grievance regarding sale deed of the suit property. According to him, Kisan was aware of the fact that the suit property was sold by original owner Ramdas to the purchasers. He did not initiate any action for possession of the suit property under Section 32(1) of the Act of 1950, despite the fact that said Kisan was dispossessed. Learned Deputy Collector was of the opinion that the remedy for Kisan was to seek possession of the suit property under Section 32(1) of the Act of 1950. With these observations, the learned Deputy collector held that the purchasers have not dispossessed Kisan or his two sons, who are respondents 1 and 2 in this petition. The theory of dispossession propounded by respondents (tenants) therefore, was not accepted by the learned Deputy Collector. The learned Deputy Collector also held that possession cannot be sought under Section 98 of the Act of 1950 by the legal heirs of tenant Kisan.

6. The learned Member of the MRT, on appeal, heard the parties. He referred to 7/12 extracts and other material on record. According to the learned Member, Kisan was the protected tenant of the suit property. He has also called for 7/12 extracts from the authorities concerned after giving opportunity to the