The tenant's right to purchase tenanted land is contingent upon timely notification by the landlord of attaining majority, and failure to initiate proceedings within the stipulated period results in loss of that right.

JUDGMENT :

A. THE CHALLENGE

1. By this petition, Petitioners have challenged the order dated 19 November 1997 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune allowing Revision Application No. MRT.SS.101/1991 filed by the Respondents and setting aside the judgment and order dated 28 February 1991 passed by the Assistant Collector, Walwa, District- Sangli. The Assistant Collector in turn had allowed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners and while setting aside the order dated 13 May 1988 passed by the Tehsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Khanapur, had directed fixation of purchase price of the land by recognizing the right of the Petitioners to purchase the same. Petitioners are thus aggrieved by the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in not recognizing their right to purchase the tenanted land under the provisions of Section 32G read with Section 32F of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act).

B. FACTS

2. Land bearing Survey No. 285/1 admeasuring 4 Hectares 35 Ares plus 3 Ares pot-kharaba situated at Village-Devarashtra, Taluka- Khanapur, District-Sangli is the subject matter of controversy in the present petition, which is hereinafter referred to as ‘the tenanted land’. One Shankar Govind Kurlekar was the owner of the tenanted land. It appears that a registered Partition Deed was executed on 4 August 1956, under which the tenanted land came to the share of Shankar’s sons, Mukund Shankar Kurlekar (Mukund) and Raosaheb alias Rajabhau Shankar Kurlekar (Raosaseb). Thus, on the Tiller’s Day of 1 April 1957, Mukund and Raosaheb had become owners of the tenanted land. The names of Mukund and Raosaheb were mutated to the revenue records in respect of the tenanted land vide Mutation Entry No. 2899 certified on 8 April 1957. Shankar apparently passed away in the year 1960. Petitioners’ predecessor filed proceedings under the provisions of Section 32G of the Act in the year 1963. In those proceedings, statements of the tenant were recorded on 8 February 1963 and 23 February 1963 in which he stated that Mukund and Raosaheb were minors and therefore fresh proceedings would be initiated by issuing notice to them after attaining the age of majority. On account of this statement being made by the tenant, the ALT dropped proceedings initiated in the year 1963 observing that right of the tenant to purchase the tenanted land was postponed till expiry of the period mentioned in Section 32F(1) of the Act. As a matter of fact, Mukund had already attained majority on 8 February 1960, his date of birth being 8 February 1942. Raosaheb attained majority on 18 February 1964, his date of birth being 18 July 1946.

3. It appears that after attaining the age of majority by Raosaheb on 18 February 1964, neither any notice was issued by the tenant nor proceedings were initiated expressing intention to purchase the tenanted land for a considerable period of time. The application for fixation of purchase price of the land under the provisions of Section 32G of the Act was filed on 4 December 1986 by Sagaru Laxman Shinde (the tenant). The ALT conducted an enquiry and proceeded to reject the application for fixation of purchase price holding that the tenant had failed to issue notice within a period of 2 years of attaining the majority by the landlord and that therefore the tenant lost right to purchase the tenanted land under Section 32F of the Act. The ALT accordingly refused to fix the purchase price holding that purchase of the tenanted land by the tenant had become ineffective and directed that the proceedings under Section 32P of the Act be initiated for return of the land to the landlords by making mutation entries in the records of rights. The ALT’s order dated 13 May 1988 was challenged by the tenant by filing Tenancy Appeal No. 3/1988 before the Assistant Collector, Walwa, District-Sangli under the provisions of Section 74 of the Act. The Assistant Collector proceeded to allow the Appeal holding that filing of pr