Oral Judgment:

1. By this petition, petitioners impugn judgment rendered by learned Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in proceedings No. MRT/AH/VI-9/85 (TNC.B.182/85), dated 28th January, 1988 and also in review application which came to be dismissed.

2. The fields in question were owned by Deochand Mehta, predecessor of the present petitioners and during their minority, were in the hands of their mother - Smt. Tarabai Mehta. Father of original respondents No. 2 and 3, namely, Dhavala Uma Rewate was in possession of the said fields as tenant. The petitioners asserted that Deochand Mehta died prior to 1st April, 1957 leaving behind them as minors as on 1st April, 1957 i.e. the tiller’s day and, therefore, the tenant could not have acquired any right to ownership under section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, "BT&AL Act"). They asserted that it was necessary for the tenant to comply with provisions of Section 32F (1A) of the BT&AL Act since they were minors. The contention of the petitioners was negatived by this Court in context of Spl.C.A. No. 1348/1972. This Court held that the Agricultural Lands Tribunal will deal with proceedings under section 32G after ascertaining the date of the order rendered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in earlier proceedings for resumption of the fields in dispute. This direction was issued by this Court (Chandurkar, J.) on 15th June, 1976. A review application was filed against such a direction which came to be dismissed.

3. It would appear that inspite of such directions, the proceedings under section 32G were not undertaken by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, nor the tenant - Dhavala Uma Rewate had taken further action in the matter. In the meanwhile, the petitioners submitted an application to the Additional Tahsildar, Akole for crops inspection. The Additional Tahsildar, in TNC Case No. 549/1981, came to conclusion that the fields in question were being cultivated by deceased respondent No. 1 - Genu, who happened to be brother-in-law of respondents No. 2 and 3. Thereafter, an application under section 84 of the BT&AL Act was submitted before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sangamner by the applicants. By said application, they sought restoration of possession in their favour under section 32P of the BT&AL Act. According to the petitioners, subtenancy was created in favour of deceased respondent No. 1 Genu. He was unauthorized person in possession of the fields in question. The tenants did not comply with the relevant provisions of the BT&AL Act and have lost the tenancy rights. Therefore, they claimed to be rightful persons to seek possession of the fields in question. Their such application was allowed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer in the tenancy proceedings bearing TC No. 1/1983.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents No. 1 to 3 preferred revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. By the impugned judgment, the revision application came to be allowed and the application of the petitioners (landlords) came to be dismissed. They filed review application which also came to be dismissed. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held that application filed by the petitioners under section 84 of the BT&AL Act was misconceived and they are not legally entitled to claim restoration of the possession in respect of the fields in question.

5. Clinching question is whether the petitioners have any legal right to seek restoration of the fields in question under the provisions of section 32P or section 32R read with section 84 of the BT&AL Act.

6. Mr. Shinde would strenuously contend that when the tenant did not comply with directions of this Court to seek determination of the price of the fields in question under section 32G, then the rights available to him stood abrogated. He would submit that the petitioners are entitled to reclaim the fields in question since the same are in possession of a trespasser. He would further submit that