Heard A.S. Kilor, the learned counsel for petitioners, Shri N.H. Joshi, the learned AGP for respondents 1 to 3 and Shri R.R. Deshpande, the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6.

2. The petitioners are questioning the judgment dated 24.1.2013 rendered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 111 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (Act).

3. Shri Ganpatrao Buty was the owner of agricultural land assigned survey number 150/2 admeasuring 18.18 acres ituated in mouza Jawala, Tahsil – Arni, District Yavatmal (said land). Respondents 4 to 6 are the legal heirs of late Shri Ganpatrao Buty.

4. The petitioners preferred application dated 10.11.2006 before Tahsildar Arni, purportedly under section 43, 46 and 49 of the Act seeking a declaration that since Shri Ramchandra Ganpat Bhure was cultivating the said land as tenant since 1958-59, in view of the provisions of section 46 and 49 of the Act, the respondents 4 to 6, as legal heirs of Shri Ramchandra Ganpatrao Bhure are the statutory owners of the said land. The crux of the application is that Shri Ramchandra Bhure, was a deemed tenant and petitioners, as his legal heirs are entitled to determination of the purchase price and transfer of ownership of the said land in their favour. It would be necessary to consider the pleadings in the said application, since the crucial question is whether the material on record is sufficient to uphold the contention of the petitioners that Shri Ramchandra Bhure was a deemed tenant. It is averred in the application that the deemed tenancy is recorded in the revenue record by mutation entry 1347 dated 11.1.1962. The further averment is that although Ramchandra Bhure was cultivating the said land since 1958-59, the revenue entry incorrectly records that Ramchandra Bhure was cultivating the land since 1961-62. The next material averment in the application is that since Ramchandra Bhure was cultivating the land till his death on 13.7.1997, and therefore, was in cultivating possession on the relevant dates 1.4.1961 and 1.4.1963, the respondents 4 to 6 are the statutory owners of the said land. It is further averred that the applicants – respondents 4 to 6 are entitled to purchase the said land in view of provisions of section 43 of the Act and to determination and fixation of the purchase price and to transfer of owners under section 43(14) of the Act.

5. Respondent 4 – Subhash Buty filed on record preliminary submissions and reply on 5.12.2006 and 10.1.2007 respectively. The land owner denied that Ramchandra Bhure was cultivating the land since 1958-59. It is asserted that the crop statement of 1958-59 records the name of one Shri Yadao Bhadya Mahar as the cultivator of the land as tenant of Shri Ganpat Buty. It is further asserted that the crop statement for the year 1962-63 records the name of Smt. Laxmibai Yadav Mahar as the cultivator on lease of Rs. 30/- and that of Shri Ramchandra Bhure as cultivator of the said land as sub-lessee of Laxmibai Yadao Mahar on lease rent of Rs. 50/-. It is specifically contended that neither Shri Yadav Mahar nor Smt. Laxmibai Mahar was authorized to sub-lessee the land. Referring to the mutation entry 1347 dated 10.11.1962 (referred to as mutation entry 11.1.1962 in the application) the land owner asserted that the Naib Tahsildar was not empowered to certify mutation entry qua the tenancy rights in the absence of an adjudication and order of the Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal. A reference is made to an order dated 4.4.2005 passed by the then Naib Tahsildar, Arni Shri Bhagat which notes that the mutation entry dated 10.11.1962 certified by the Naib Tahsildar is not supported by any reference to tenancy proceedings or to any order passed in such proceedings. In sum and substance, the contention of the land owner was that Shri Ramchandra Bhure was not in lawful cultivating possession of the said land.

6. By order dat