1. The land owners have filed these Petitions questioning the common Judgment dated 27.9.1996 delivered by the M.R.T. Mumbai in two Revision - Applications numbered as Tenancy A.76 of 1995 and Tenancy No.A-189 of 1995. These Revisions were field by the deceased Respondent no. 1 challenging the order dated 12.12.1994 passed by the Forest Settlement Officer, Sawantwadi and order dated 28.2.1991 passed by the S.D.O. Sawantwadi. Nobody has appeared for legal heirs of deceased Respondent no. l. The AGP has opposed the Petition on behalf of the Respondent no. 2 State of Maharashtra and its Officers.

2. Mr. Karandikar, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the agricultural lands belonging to the present Petitioner were let out to the deceased Respondent no. 1 and he was declared to be deemed purchaser. He was expected to pay purchase price in 12 instalments of Rs.689/- plus yearly interest from 1974 and last instalment was payable on 22.9.1986. He did not pay the single instalment and was in arrears of Rs.14179/- including interest arrears. The Additional Tahasildar therefore issued final Notice on 2.2.1991 called upon him to credit the entire amount. The notice was ignored and hence the Tahasildar by his order dated 20.2.1991 declared purchase in effective under section 32A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. (Hereinafter referred to as 1948 Act). But then, he forfeited the land to State Government. This was questioned by the landlord and the Appellate Authority thereafter corrected that error and restored the lands to the Petitioners. In due course of time, Petitioners sold those lands to one Harekar. Thus, according to the learned counsel during the pendency of Revision before MRT the Petitioners were not owners of the said land and land was/is in possession of subsequent purchaser Harekar.

3. The order of the Tahasildar forfeiting land to the State Government was challenged by the Tenant also independently before the S. D.O. Sawantwadi. The Appeal was dismissed and the Appellate Authority directed the Additional Tahasildar to implement the order passed in favour of the Petitioner-landlord in their Appeal. Both these orders were then challenged belatedly without preferring any application for condonation of delay. M.R.T.

has condoned the delay only on the strength of the Affidavit and that too while deciding the Revision finally. Thus the order condoning the delay and allowing the Revision is one and same. Mr. Karandikar therefore submits that Petitioner did not get proper opportunity to oppose the prayer to have the delay condoned. In the alternative and without prejudice, he submits that the M.R.T has not recorded any reasons for condoning such huge delay and therefore order is non-speaking. He points out that M.R.T. has relied upon Judgment of the learned Single Judge reported at 1990 (1) Bom. C.R 705. (Tribhavandas Jeevraj Patel vs. Babu Govind Ghatal) He submits that said Judgment does not consider the facts like present one. Here according to him, the Tahasildar gave all opportunities to the tenant to pay the instalments and to clear the amounts. That opportunity was not availed of. The tenant did not even bother to appear before the Tahasildar and in this situation order declaring purchase to be ineffective cannot be said to be without justification and jurisdiction. He has also relied upon provisions of section 32K (1A) and 1 (B) to submit that law has made necessary provisions for such Tenant who remains in default. The Respondent tenant ought to have appeared before the Tahasildar expressed his difficulties and then sought extention of time and cleared the arrears or then sought suitable instalments. The provisions of section 32K (3) cannot be interpreted in the mode and manner which would result in defeating this scheme and intention in section 32K (A) and 1 (B).

4. In this situation, according to him there was no merit in the Revisions filed and impugned judgment is therefore liable t