The conclusive nature of the certificate under Section 32-M and the importance of timely action and full disclosure in proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.

1. All these four writ petitions involve common question of Law as such are decided together. The present proceedings are prosecuted by the legal heirs of the daughters of the original landlord. Smt. Bhimabai Sitaram Bang was the original land-lady, who was a widow on the tillers day i.e. 01st April, 1957. As she was a widow, the date of deemed purchase is postponed and she continued to be land-lady of the suit land. The said land-lady on or about in the year 1974, filed four applications against four different set of tenants for possession under Section 31, 14, 25 and 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The tenancy Awal Karkoon, Newasa vide its judgment and order dated 15th June, 1978 dismissed the said tenancy cases. The land-lady being aggrieved by the decision of the tenancy Awal Karkoon, filed four separate appeals before the Sub Divisional Officer, Rahuri Division, Ahemdnagar. The Sub Divisional Officer, Rahuri dismissed the appeals and confirmed the order passed by the lower authority. The land-lady thereafter, preferred revisions before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune. During the pendency of the said revisions before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, the original land-lady died and her two daughters namely Smt. Ramkunwar Ramkishan Pallod and Smt. Dwarkabai Onkardas Somani were brought on record, as legal heirs. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune remanded the matters back to the Trial Court for decision afresh, as the legal heirs were also required to prove their personal requirement and on other grounds also.

2. After the remand, the matters were heard by the Additional Tahasildar, Newasa, who again dismissed all the four tenancy applications. The said legal heirs did not adduce any evidence. In the mean time, as the original land-lady had died tenants issued notice to the heirs i.e. daughters of the original land-lady, under section 32F of the tenancy Act. The tenants also filed an application under Section 32F of the Tenancy Act for declaring them as purchasers. They also fled application to the effect that the proceeding which are remanded back and their proceedings under section 32F of the tenancy Act be heard jointly. The application filed by the tenant for conducting both the proceedings jointly was rejected. The tenant therefore, filed revision before the Collector, Ahmednagar, who set aside the order, and directed the Trial Court i.e. Tahasildar, to hear the application of the tenants under section 32F along with the case remanded by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune under section 31 of the Act together.

3. The heirs of the original land-lady did not adduce any evidence before the Tahasildar, eventually the statements of the tenants were recorded, the petitioners even did not cross-examine the tenants, the heirs did not submit any application within one year on the death of the original land-lady, in absence of any evidence on behalf of land-lady, the Additional Tahasildar and A.L.T., Newasa dismissed the application of the land-lady and allowed the application filed by the tenant under Section 32F. The said orders were challenged by the legal heirs of the landlady, by filing four appeals before the Sub Divisional Officer, Rahuri, who also dismissed the said appeals. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the legal heirs of land-lady preferred revisions before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune also dismissed the revisions. The Revision bearing Nos.2/86, which is subject matter of Writ Petition No.2561 of 1991 was dismissed on merits, vide order dated 26th February, 1990. The other three revisions which are subject matter of Writ Petition Nos. 2637 of 1991,2640 of 1991 and 2639 of 1991 were dismissed summarily by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 16th September, 1987, on the ground that revisions were barred by limitation. The legal heirs of the original landlady filed present writ petitions before this Court