IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that tenants must adhere to strict limitation periods under the BTAL Act when seeking to exercise their rights to purchase land, and failure to do so renders their applications invalid.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This petition challenges an order dtd. 9/12/2013 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai (for short, "MRT") whereby a revision application as filed by the petitioners against an order dtd. 10/12/2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nashik Division, Nashik, stands rejected. The relevant facts are :- On 5/7/1916, one Tulshiram Gangaram Marwadi purchased subject land from one Manaji Jayaji for Rs.100.00. Tulshiram had three sons i.e. Zumbarlal, Jawaharlal and Bansilal. On 30/4/1949, Zumberlal, who was stated to be managing the family properties, inducted one Pandu Tulshiram Bharsat as tenant. To that effect a Mutation Entry No. 178 came to be made reflecting Pandu Bharsat as the tenant.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that Zumberlal and the family members of his brothers partitioned the joint family properties. On 20/9/1963 the land in question subject matter of the present proceedings, came to be transferred in the name of one Subhashchandra Jawaharlal Bora (son of Jawaharlal). This came to be mutated in the revenue records by mutation entry no. 547. In the meantime, proceeding under Sec. 32 G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, the "BTAL Act") for determination of the price of land to be paid by the tenant for purchase of the land was initiated by the tenant, however, since as Subhashchandra was a minor on the tillers day, as per the provisions of Sec. 32 F of the BTAL Act, the tillers day was deferred till he attained majority. Subhashchandra is stated to have attained majority on 4/2/1966.

3. On 16/9/1976, Subhashchandra expired who was survived by his widow Lalita and sons Anand, Atul and Arun. It is stated that sometime after 1976 Pandu also expired and he was survived by his sons. It appears that Pandu Bharsat had a mutation entry in his favour as a tenant. It however appears that the petitioner nos.3, 4 and 5 had applied for fixing of purchase price of the land claiming under Murlidhar who appears to be the brother of Pandu. There is nothing on record to show that the name of Murlidhar was entered on any of the revenue record. On 31/3/2005, the petitioners issued a notice for fixing purchase price of the subject land to be transferred in their name. On 26/4/2005, an application under Ss. 32F(1)(1a), 32(2) and 32G of BTAL Act was made by them before Tahsildar, Dindori. The respondents opposed such application by filing their reply. The Tahsildar adjudicated the application filed by the petitioners and by an order dtd. 10/11/2010, the Tahsildar allowed the application of the petitioners by fixing purchase price of Rs.874.00.

4. The respondents/landlords being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tahsildar, preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nashik (for short, "SDO") being Tenancy Appeal No. 27 of 2010. The learned SDO heard the parties on the appeal. By an order dtd. 10/12/2012, the SDO reversed the findings of the Tahsildar and set aside the order dtd. 10/11/2010 passed by the Tahsildar. The SDO observed that the claim as made by the petitioners in their application under Sec. 32F was barred by limitation in view of the principles of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Anna Bhau Magdum v. Babasaheb Anandrao Desai,AIR 1 995 SUPREME COURT 21 64 .

5. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dtd. 10/12/2012 passed by the SDO approached the MRT in the revision application in question (Revision Application No.87 of 2013). The MRT by the impugned judgment and order dtd. 9/12/2013, has rejected the revision application of the petitioners thereby continuing the order passed by the S.D.O. On such conspectus, the petitioner assailing the orders passed by the MRT, the proceedings are before this Court today.

6. Mr. Inamdar, learned counsel for the petitioners in assailing the impugned order has limited submissions. He would submit that the findings as recorded by the Tahsildar were appropriate as the petitioners had al