Prospective purchasers lacked standing to challenge the tribunal's judgment and the certificate issued under section 38(6) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, as their rights were in an embryonic stage and not yet finally adjudicated by the Civil Court.

ORAL JUDGMENT

By this petition, the petitioners impugn judgment and order rendered by learned Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.67/B/90/N. The Revision Application was allowed by the MRT and order of the appellate authority regarding remand of the matter to the Tenancy Tribunal was set aside.

2. Indisputably, land bearing Gat No.383, admeasuring 77 Ares, was owned by deceased Respondent No.2 Abaibai. The Respondent No.3 Chandrabhagabai is her daughter. She has inherited the land as well as she became owner by virtue of a document of transfer executed by Abaibai in her favour. The Respondent No.1 claims to be tenant of the said land.

3. The petitioners' case is that they agreed to purchase 41 Ares area out of land Gat No.387 from said Abaibai by virtue of an agreement of sale dated 26.6.1987. They further alleged that they were inducted into possession of the said 41 Ares land as prospective purchasers. They were cultivating the said land. According to them, the Respondent No.1 has no concern, whatsoever, with the land in question. Still, however, he submitted an application dated 24.6.1987 for restoration of possession U/s 37(A) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. (For short, "HT and AL Act"). That application was dismissed in default. He lateron filed another application U/s 48 of the HT & AL Act alleging that he was entitled to purchase land in question being tenant thereof. The Tenancy Tribunal (Tahsildar) allowed his application. The petitioners preferred an appeal. The appellate authority held that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioners by the tenancy Tribunal and, therefore, remand was necessary. The appellate authority directed remittance of the matter to the Tenancy Tribunal for afresh inquiry and decision on merits after giving due opportunity to the parties. The order rendered by the appellate authority was challenged by the Respondent No.1 by filing Revision Application before MRT. In the meanwhile, original landlady i.e. Abaibai had demised. The successor in title, namely, Respondent No.3 Chandrabhagabai had given no objection for grant of the necessary certificate by allowing application of the Respondent No.1 (Mukunda). She had admitted his tenancy rights. Considering the change in the circumstances, the MRT came to the conclusion that remand order was unjustified. The MRT, therefore, allowed the Revision Application and set aside the order of the appellate authority and restored the order dated15.7.1988 rendered by the Tenancy Tribunal i.e. the Additional Tahsildar. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Nanded issued the certificate under sub-section (6) of Section 38 of the HT & AL Act in favour of the Respondent No.1 on 21.2.1991.

4. The petitioners alleged that their agreement to purchase the land was prior in time and they have filed a suit for specific enforcement of the said agreement which is pending. They further alleged that they sought injunction against the Respondent No.1 as they were in actual possession of the land in question. They submit that the Respondent No.1 was not in possession of the land in question as on the date of filing application for preferential purchase U/s 48 of the HT & AL Act. They would submit that the Revisional authority committed patent error while allowing the Revision Application without considering the pending Civil suits and their rights as prospective purchasers. Hence, they urge to set aside the impugned judgment of the MRT and also to quash the consequent certificate dated 21.2.1991 issued under sub-section (6) of Section 38 of the HT & AL Act in favour of the Respondent No.1.

5. Heard learned counsel.

6. It emerges from the record that the Respondent No.1-Mukunda had filed an application for restoration of possession (TNC Case No.7/1987). He asserted that his grand father by name Vithoba was tenant of the land in question. He further asserted that after death of his grand father, the tenancy was inh