The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and agricultural Lands act, 1950, in determining ownership, possession, and partition of agricultural land.

JUDGMENT

Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. This petition challenges the order dated 19-07-2017, passed by the learned Member (Judicial) of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bench at Pune, in appeal No. (8/a/2015/B) New No.a/Beed/IV/1/2017, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the respondents and dismissing the application moved by the petitioners for summary eviction of the respondents.

3. The predecessors of the petitioners were tenants of the land in question i.e. Gut Nos. 93a, 93aa, 94a, 94aa, 95a and 95aa to the extent of 23 acres 34 Gunthas at village Massajog, since 1948-1949. The provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and agricultural Lands act, 1950, (for short, 'the said act, 1950') are applicable to the present case. Name of Mahadu Ramchandra Solunke, the predecessor of the petitioners, was entered in the revenue record as a protected tenant and therefore, he was declared as owner under Section 38a and 38E of the said act, 1950, by order dated 17-02-1969, to the extent of 23 acres 34 Gunthas. Certificate of ownership was issued by the competent authority in the name of Mahadu after he deposited price of the land. accordingly Mutation Entry No.138 was certified therein recording Mahadu's name as owner of the land in question.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that Mahadu's brother Vishwanath was never in possession of the suit land / land in question and Vishwanath was never declared as a protected tenant. Vishwanath never purchased the suit land from the original owner. Mahadu never allotted the suit land to Vishwanath either by partition or by any other mode and the name of Vishwanath was never recorded as a tenant to the suit land. Vishwanath applied to the Talathi to enter his name to the revenue record to the extent of 11 acres 37 Gunthas on the basis of partition. accordingly name of Vishwanath was entered on Mutation Entry No.162 which is certified on 27-01-1971. The petitioners claimed that this was without notice to Mahadu. Vishwanath thereafter sold 54 R land from Survey Nos. 94a and 94aa and 60 R land from Survey No.93a in favour of Bharat @ Babasaheb s/o Balasaheb Khandare on 08-09-1987. after the death of Bharat Khandare his wife submitted application under Section 50(B) for permission to transfer the said land.

5. The petitioners filed proceedings under Section 98(C) of the act, 1950, praying that the suit land be taken out of the physical possession of respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and the same be restored to the petitioners being protected tenants.

The respondents opposed the said proceedings contending that Mahadu was Karta of the joint family and therefore, Mutation Entry No.138 was effected in his name. Vishwanath and Mahadu had equal share in the suit lands and the suit lands were partitioned between Vishwanath and Mahadu.

6. The Collector allowed the application filed by the petitioners vide order dated 30-12-2014 and directed that possession of the suit lands should be restored by respondent Nos. 1 to 7 to the petitioners. Being aggrieved, the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 approached the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, aurangabad, under Section 91 of the said act, 1950. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondents. Hence the present petition.

7. Heard Mr. M. M. Patil (Beedkar) learned advocate for petitioners, Mr. M. P. Tripathi learned advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 & 6, Mr. N. B. Khandare learned advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 7 & 10 and Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, learned assistant Government Pleader for respondents State.

8. according to the learned advocate for petitioners, the certificate is admittedly issued in the name of Mahadu and it was never challenged by Vishwanath. Therefore, The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has erred in holding that Vishwanath was co-holder of the suit property. He submits that Mahadu was the exclusive owner. There is no presumption of joint property which is wrongly drawn by the Tribuna