The court affirmed the primacy of tenant rights under the Hyderabad Tenancy Act while addressing the implications of res judicata on subsequent purchasers' claims, ruling that prior possessory orders are binding.

JUDGMENT :

1. The subject matter in all these writ petitions is a land situated at village Bhendegaon, Tq. Basmathnagar, Dist. Parbhani in Sy. No. 72/1 ad-measuring 19A-9G, originally owned by one Mirza Asadulla Baig. Owing to various proceedings filed in relation to the subject land and commonality of the subject matter, the three writ petitions are clubbed together, though challenging orders arising out of different proceedings.

WRIT PETITION No. 1582 OF 1990

2. The case of the petitioners in this writ petition is that, the owner of the said land Mirza Asadulla Baig, was residing at Hyderabad and the land was cultivated by his servant namely Nagu Mahadya Khandare. Mirza Asadulla Baig sold 19A - 9G land from Sy. No. 72/1 on 04.09.1973 to one Rama Asraji. Thereafter, the heirs of the Rama Ashruba sold this portion to the petitioner No. 2 i.e. Yashwanta Yogaji in the year 1977. It is claimed that Nagu who was the servant of land owner Mirza Asadulla Baig, was a witness to the registered sale-deed, which was executed in favour of Rama Asraji. On the basis of sale-deed which is executed in the year 1977, the present petitioners are claiming to be owner and possessor of land in Sy. No. 72/1.

3. It is contended by the petitioners that after the death of Nagu, who was servant of original land holder, his legal heirs were dispossessed and hence, they have filed an application before the Naib Tahsildar, Basmathnagar, bearing Case No. 75/TNC/32(1)/2 for possession of land under Section 32(1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act , on the ground that their ancestor Nagu was a protected tenant, and after his death, they have been dispossessed by Rama Ashruba and Yogaji Balaji in collusion with the owner Mirza Asadulla Baig. The proceedings were instituted in the Court of Naib Tahsildar (Revenue), Basmathnagar on 18.03.1975. After considering the rival contentions, the Naib Tahsildar has allowed the application of the legal heirs of Nagu vide judgment and order dated 16.04.1979, with a direction to restore the possession of the land in Sy. No. 72/1 ad-measuring 19A-9G situated at village Bhendegaon, Tq. Basmath to the applicants.

4. The judgment and order passed by the Naib Tahsildar was challenged by Yogaji i.e. father of petitioners No. 1 and 2 before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Parbhani. The appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Collector vide judgment and order dated 31.01.1981. Yogaji further challenged the said decision in Revision Application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad (hereinafter “MRT” for short) which was numbered as Case No. 78/B/82/Parbhnai. The Revision Application was also dismissed by Member, MRT dated 24.02.1984 the ground of delay and latches, thereby confirming the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar dated 16.04.1979. The order passed by Member, MRT was further challenged in Writ Petition No. 464 of 1984 before this Court which was also dismissed by this Court vide dated 27.08.1984.

5. It is the contention of the petitioners that when they got the knowledge about the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar dated 16.04.1979, having realised the effect of the order, which was against their interests, they have challenged the order of Naib Tahsildar before the Deputy Collector, Parbhani. After hearing the respective parties, the Deputy Collector has allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners by setting aside the order of Naib Tahsildar, vide judgment and order dated 13.11.1987. It is the contention of the petitioners that this order of the Deputy Collector, setting aside the earlier order passed by the Naib Tahsildar dated 16.04.1979, has attained the finality as it has not been challenged.

6. It is further contended that inspite of the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 13.11.1987, the Tahsildar issued a communication dated 09.12.1988 directing the Revenue Inspector to hand over the possession of the disputed land to the legal heirs of protected tenant Nagu. Accordingly, the Revenue