The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement for tenants to send intimation of purchase to the landlord within the prescribed period after the death of the landlady, as per Section 32-F(1-A) of the Bombay Tenancy Act.

JUDGMENT

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

"(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India thereby quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2000 passed in Revision Application No. MRT-KP-118/93 passed by the learned Designated Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, Camp Kolhapur which arose out of the judgment and order dated 02.08.1993 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Karveer Division, Kolhapur in Tenancy Appeal No. 54 of 1991 which arose out of the judgment & order dated 31.01.1991 passed by the learned Additional Tehsildar and ALT, Kagal in TNC.Case No. ALT/Sidhnerli and further be pleased to direct the concerned authorities to hold proper enquiry under Section 43-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act (for short 'said Act')."

2. Admittedly all three orders, passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (for short 'ALT'), Sub Divisional Officer (for short 'SDO') and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short 'MRT') are concurrent orders passed against Petitioners. Petitioners are tenants / successors of the tenants in respect suit property namely agricultural land bearing Gat No. 1163 admeasuring 1 Hector 82 Ares and situated at Village Sidhnerli, Taluka Kagal, District Kolhapur (hereinafter refereed as 'said land'). Respondent No. 1 is the landlord whereas Respondent No. 2 is the original tenant.

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

3.1. Respondent No. 1 is landlord claiming ownership of the said property by virtue of Will and adoption deed of Smt. Ramabai Narsinh @ Balabhat Joshi. On 01.04.1957 i.e tillers day, Smt. Ramabai was the owner of the said land. Admittedly she was a widow. In the present case Ramabai executed a registered Will dated 17.11.1956 in favour of Respondent No. 1 and bequeathed the said property to him and subsequently by a registered adoption deed dated 02.09.1960, she adopted Respondent No .1 as her son.

3.2. Record indicates that because Ramabai was a widow, 32-G proceedings adopted by the predecessor-in-title of Petitioners (Tenant) were dropped. Ramabai expired on 17.12.1974. On her demise Respondent No.1 stepped into her shoes, became landlord of the said property and his name was mutated in the kabjedar / column of Revenue Record vide Mutation Entry No. 5369 dated 01.08.1978.

3.3. In the above background application was filed by Respondent No. 1 landlord against the Petitioners' predecessors-in-title namely against Balu Raghu Patil and Dattu Raghu Patil under Section 32-G and 32-F of the said Act for seeking possession of the said land, the said case was numbered as TNC Case No. ALT/Sidhnerli. It was contented by Respondent No. 1 that on tillers day Ramabai being a widow, 32-G proceedings in respect of the said land were dropped, that after her demise tenants did not give intimation to Respondent No. 1 about their readiness and willingness to purchase the suit land under 32-F of the said Act within 2 years and hence it was prayed that tenants did not have any right to retain possession of the said land and as such possession of the said land was sought to be resumed.

3.4. The learned ALT framed the following issues for determination :-

(i) Whether on tillers day, the property belonged to widow Ramabai?

(ii) Whether the opponents were required to give intimation under Section 32-F in time?

(iii) Whether the opponents were required to give intimation under 32-F in time?

(iv) Whether the opponent tenants were entitled to purchase the land under Section 32-G?

(v) Whether the Applicants prove their bonafide requirement?

3.5. Both parties submitted their statements on oath which was recorded by the ALT. The learned ALT allowed the Application filed by Respondent No. 1 and declared tenant's purchase of the s