1. Heard, learned Advocates.

2. By order dated 20-04-2001, this Court admitted the matter. Taking into consideration the affidavit in reply and accompanying copy of the Panchanama of delivery of possession to the respondents in terms of the impugned order, interim relief was denied to the petitioner. However, the respondents were directed not to create any third party interests in the suit property and not to part with the possession of the suit property till the disposal of the petition.

3. The petitioner contends that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Laxman S/o Shankar Bandgar. They are owners and in possession of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 171/A admeasuring 10 Acres and 34 Gn. situated at Halgada, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. Narsu Khandu Bandgar is the original assese. He had two sons namely Shankar S/o Narsu and Rama S/o Narsu who are therefore real brothers. Shankar had one son namely Laxman and Rama had a son Venkat who are therefore cousin brothers. Petitioner No. 1 is the widow of Laxman. Petitioners Nos. 2 & 3 are sons of petitioner No. 1 and the deceased Laxman.

4. Survey No. 171/1 was noted in favour of the deceased Laxman and survey No. 171/2 for the deceased Venkat. The original respondents i.e. Venkat Rama, Kasibai w/o Venkatrao, Baburao S/o Venkatrao have died. The respondents therefore, are Narsing S/o Baburao and Vithal S/o Venkatrao.

5. The dispute is between the petitioners and the respondents with reference to Survey No. 171/1. There is no dispute with reference to Survey No. 171/2. According to the petitioner, he is the landlord of Survey No. 171/1 (which is also recorded in some document as Survey No. 171/A) ad-measuring 10 Acres and 34 Gunthas.

6. It is contended that the respondents moved an application under section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The said application is dated 15-01-1995. Since there is no limitation prescribed under section 98, the respondents have shrewdly filed the said application making wild allegations and claims.

7. The in-charge Dy. Collector (Land Reforms) allowed the application dated 15-01-1995 filed by respondent No. 1 Venkat under section 98, by its judgment and order dated 02-01-1996. The petitioners challenged it by filing an appeal No. 7/A/96/LR/2 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 11-01-2001.

8. Paragraph Nos. 4 & 5 of the said application dated 15-01-1995 are read out to suggest that -

a] The deceased Venkat S/o Rama was a protected tenant.

b] The final protected tenancy register, 1951 to 1953 mentions his name.

c] His name similarly appears in the Khasara from the year 1954-1955 to 1960-61.

d] It is submitted that the respondents family were protected tenants from 1945 till 1973-74 and were therefore tilling the land.

e] Claim was that the petitioners ancestors had dispossessed them in the year 1974-75.

9. Shri Patil's first and foremost objection therefore is that, if at all the deceased respondents were claiming to be protected tenants and allegedly dispossessed, they could have approached the competent Court/ Authority under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act, 1950 and not under Section 98. To escape the clutches of limitation, they have shrewdly resorted to section 98.

10. His further objection is that if the deceased Venkat was claiming to be a tenant and allegedly dispossessed in 1973-74, it took him twenty years to realize this aspect. The said issue could not have been dug up after a passage of twenty years. Such application could have been filed within three years of the cause of action.

11. Shri Patil's further submits that no claim for tenancy could have been raised within a family. According to him, section 5(a) of the Tenancy Act, 1950 prohibits a member of the land holders family to make a claim as a deemed tenant. According to him, the explanation below Section 2 (1) (g) pertains to the case of an undivided Hindu family whose l