The main legal point established in the judgment is that the purchase cannot be deemed ineffective unless the Tribunal fails to recover the purchase price from the tenant as arrears of land revenue, as per the provisions of Sections 32-K, 32-M, and 32-P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.

JUDGMENT

Milind N. Jadhav, J. - By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

'(b) that the impugned order passed on 31.07.1999 in Revision Application No. MRT-SS-44/95 by the Designated Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur annexed at Exhibit 'C' hereto and that passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Miraj Division, Miraj in Tenancy Appeal No. 9 of 1988 on 30.12.1994 annexed at Exhibit 'B' hereto be kindly quashed and set aside and that passed by the learned Tehsildar, Tasgaon on 30.05.1988 in Case No. Tenancy/32-P/Sheri Kavathe may kindly be restored to file.'

2. Petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur (for short 'MRT') in Revision Proceedings upholding the Sub-Divisional Officer's (for short 'SDO') order in Tenancy Appeal and seek restoration of the Teshildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal's (for short 'ALT') order dated 30.05.1988. According to the Petitioners, this case is squarely covered by the amended provisions of Section 32-K(3), Section 32-M read with Section 32-P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 (for short 'the said Act') and in that view of the matter, considering the facts and circumstances, the impugned orders are bad in law.

3. Such of the relevant facts necessary for determining the controversy raised in the present Petition are as under:-

(i) The suit land is Survey No. 36, Gat No. 217 admeasuring 11 Acres and 16 Gunthas situated at Village Sheri Kavathe, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli (for short 'suit land').

(ii) On 28.11.1962, the ALT fixed the purchase price of the suit land by determining the price at Rs. 16970.70 in favour of Baburao Gavali, son of the original tenant namely Sakharam Gavali and it was to be paid in 12 equal installments by the tenant.

(iii) On 16.07.1963 the other two sons of Sakharam Gavali namely Pandurang and Bhimrao filed an Appeal before the SDO against the order passed by ALT. In that Appeal, order came to be passed and ALT's order was set aside and case was remanded back for deciding the tenant of the suit land.

(iv) On 24.05.1966 ALT passed a fresh Section 32-G order determining that each son of Sakharam namely Pandurang, Bhimrao and Baburao was entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit land and therefore entitled to purchase the suit land to that extent.

(v) Being aggrieved Pandurang and Bhimrao challenged the ALT's order dated 24.05.1966 before the SDO and sought exclusion of Baburao's share. Simultaneously, the landlord namely Balwant Shankar Gadave also challenged the ALT's order before the SDO.

(vi) On 15.10.1969, the SDO passed twin orders, firstly rejecting the landlord's Appeal No. 152 of 1969 and secondly, partly allowing the Appeal filed by Pandurang and Bhimrao and holding that the third son namely Baburao was not entitled for any share and remanded the case back to the ALT for determining the apportionment of the purchase price accordingly between Pandurang and Bhimrao i.e. to the extent of 50% each.

(vii) On 23.11.1971 the third son Baburao filed Revision Application before the MRT against the order of SDO. This Revision Application came to be dismissed, hence he filed Writ Petition No. 1737 of 1972. By order dated 04.08.1976, Baburao's Writ Petition came to be dismissed and it was held that Pandurang and Bhimrao and their legal heirs were entitled to purchase the suit land under Section 32-G. Thus the order passed by the MRT was upheld by this Court, it was not challenged any further and therefore, became final.

(viii) On 19.02.1980, Petitioners herein i.e. Pandurang and Bhimrao and their legal heirs filed Application before the Teshildar seeking to deposit the purchase price.

(ix) On 06.03.1980, Tehsildar issued notice demanding deposit of 1/3rd amount by the three sons namely Pandurang, Bhimrao and Baburao which was in fact, contrary to the order dated 04.08.1976 passed in Writ Petition No. 1737 of 1972 by this Court.

(x) On 24.05.1983, three years therea