O R D E R

1. Application for deleting the name of respondent No.2 is allowed at the risk of the appellant.

2. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the Signature Not Verified parties.

Digitally signed by SWETA BALODI Date: 2025.03.03

1 R7 e: a5 s1 o:0 n2 : IST 3. This is a case where the appellant has taken inconsistent pleas including one which includes claiming his right as an agreement holder. The appellant has woken up after several years and decided to pursue action after an application has been filed by the respondents for resumption, decades after achieving the status of a public trust, which was followed by the issuance of an exemption certificate.

4. Suffice it is to state that the father of the appellant had chosen not to challenge either the aforesaid proceedings, or to claim his status as an agreement holder. Merely because the appellant is the legal heir of the erstwhile tenant, he would not be entitled to the benefit of the provisions under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958 (for short, the Act, 1958) as the provision clearly indicates a mandate of being in cultivatory possession.

5. Thus, looking at the dispute