( 1 ) THESE three petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution are filed by the landlady who was the widow of one Patel Baldevdas Hathibhai in respect of three S. Nos. 48/1 48 and 50 of Radhavanj village in Taluka Matar District Kaira in the possession of different tenants who were held to be deemed purchasers on 1-4-57 and in whose cases the purchase has been determined in proceedings under sec. 32g of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The revenue authorities as well as the Revenue Tribunal held that the respondents-tenants had become deemed purchasers and on that footing purchase price has been determined. It is this finding which is challanged in these petitions. All these three petitions raise common questions of law and facts and they are disposed of by this common order

( 2 ) MR Patel raised three grounds: (1) That the landlady being under a disability there was a postponed date her tenants could not become deemed purchasers ors 1-4-57 ? (2) That the finding of the Revenue Tribunal was perverse in all these three cases that the concerned tenants did not hold land in excess of the ceiling limit and they become deemed purchasers. (3) That the Agricultural Lands Tribunal had misconceived the nature of this inquiry and the Revenue Tribunal had not considered this aspect and bad thus committed a patent error of law.

( 3 ) AS regards the first contention of Mr. Patel it is not disputed that the petitioners husband died on 8-1-58 The tenants would become deemed purchasers on 1-4-57 and they would not be divested of this compulsory purchase if the landlord died thereafter and his heir was a person suffering from a disability as a minor or a widow so as to postpone the deemed purchase in such a case. Sec. 32f (1) would not apply to such a case of a landlord who suffered from no such disability and whose tenants became deemed purchasers under sec. 32 of the Act. It is only if the landlord is a minor or a widow or a person subject to any mental or physical disability or a person serving as a member of the armed forces on the tillers day that the deemed purchase would be postponed as provided under sec. 32f (1) (a ). The said condition however should apply at the date of the deemed purchase 3e on 1-4-57 and if on that date the landlord was not a widow but her husband was alive there would be no question of the purchase date being extended. Therefore the Revenue Tribunal has not committed any error of law so far as the first question is concerned.

( 4 ) AS regards the other two contentions raised by Mr. Patel the nature of the inquiry under sec. 32g must be kept in mind. Under sec. 32g (1) as soon as may be after the tillers day the Tribunal shall publish or cause to be published a public notice in the prescribed form in such village within its jurisdiction calling upon (A) all tenants who under sec. 32 are deemed to have purchased the lands (b) all landlords of such lands and (c) all other persons interested thereinto appear before it on the date specified in the notice. This notice shall be served individually to each such tenant landlord and also as far as practicable other persons calling upon each of them to appear before it on the date specified in the said public notice. This is the first step to be taken by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal of issuing a notice. The next step under sec. 32g (2) is to record a statement of the tenant to determine his willingness to purchase the land. Under sec. 32g (3) if the tenant fails to appear or is not willing to purchase the land the Agricultural Lands Tribunal declares that the tenant is not willing to purchase and the purchase is declared ineffective. If however the tenant is willing to purchase the Lands Tribunal under sec. 32g (4) shall after giving an opportunity to the tenant and landlord and all persons interested in the land to be heard and after holding the inquiry determine the purchase price of such land in ac