The main legal point established in the judgment is that action must be initiated within a reasonable time when the period of limitation is not prescribed under the provisions of law. The court also emphasized the need for a prompt suo-motu enquiry under Section 84C to prevent irreparable injury to the purchaser.

1. The Petition challenges the order passed by the Tenancy Awwal Karkoon under Section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1976(hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’). It also impugns the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer confirming the order as well as the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissing the Revision Application filed by the petitioners.

2. The land bearing Gat No.181 was being cultivated by two brothers Baba and Aba Lavand. Each of the brothers had half a share in the property. Since they were tenants on the Tiller’s day, they exercised their right and purchased the property under the provision of Section 32G of the aforesaid Act. Each of them thus became a deemed purchaser of half the land. The purchase price was fixed for the land and accordingly that price was deposited by the Lavand brothers and a certificate was issued under Section 32M of the aforesaid Act. Sale Certificates were issued and the mutation entries were effected in their names indicating that they were owners of the land.

3. It appears that Baba Lavand expired on 25th December, 1979 and respondent No.1 was accepted as his heir and a mutation entry was made in his name. Aba Lavand also died on 25th November, 1970 and the name of his son was entered into the revenue records. Thus respondent Nos.1 and 2 were shown as owners of the aforesaid land in the revenue records. It appears that the respondents sold their lands to the petitioners in 1980. Respondent No.1 sold his share on 1st January, 1980 while respondent No.2 sold the other half to the petitioner on 1st October, 1980. However, no permission was sought from the Collector for the sale, as required under the aforesaid Act.

4. Six years later, an enquiry was initiated under Section 43 read with Section 84C of the said Act. The petitioners appeared before the Tenancy Court and contended that they were unaware that the sale could not be effected in their favour without the previous sanction of the Collector. The statements of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were recorded before the Tenancy Court. Both of them deposed that they had sold the property since they were in dire need of money. They have also stated that as they were unaware of the position in law, no permission had been sought from the Collector as required under Section 43 of the aforesaid Act. They did not at any point of time resile from the sale of the land.

5. The Tenancy Court held that since there was no sanction accorded by the Collector for sale of the land, the land was required to be forfeited. That order was impugned by the petitioners in Tenancy Appeal No.12 of 1987 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati. The Appellate Authority has dismissed their Appeal and has confirmed the order passed by the Tenancy Court. It was observed that, the mere fact that the petitioners had improved the land, that could not in any manner absolve them from the requirement of obtaining a sanction from the Collector prior to purchase of the land which was owned by respondent Nos.1 and 2. It was held that the petitioners had violated the provisions of the aforesaid Act.

6. Being aggrieved by the decision taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati, the petitioners preferred a Revision Application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. That Application has also been dismissed.

7. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that proceedings under Section 84C of the said Act can be initiated only within a reasonable time. According to him since the sale was effected in 1980, the provision could have been invoked immediately thereafter. He points out that six years is not a reasonable time as the enquiry was initiated only in 1986. The learned Advocate relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim [(1997) 6 SCC 71], in support of his submission. He further submits that the revenue record did not indicate that the respondent N