An order passed by a competent authority, even if illegal or procedurally irregular, is not a nullity and cannot be challenged in collateral proceedings after the limitation period has expired, unless it is challenged in specifically constituted appellate proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner no. 1 is descendant of one Kashiram Ganu Mahajan who happens to be one of the landlords of group -A lands comprising survey Nos. 86, 179/3, 550/2, 551. Other joint land owners were Shamu Kashiram Mahajan, Sitaram Chango Mahajan, and Bhavani Gaba Mahajan, along with said Kashiram. In respect of group “A” lands, proceedings under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter, for convenience referred to as “The BTAL Act”) bearing Tenancy cases No. 146 and 166 of 1959 were initiated before the Mamlatdar & Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Raver and were concluded under order dated 12-12-1960. In said proceedings, it had been revealed that tenant i.e. Shamu Kashiram Mahajan was entitled to purchase one fourth of the lands from group I with three fourth lands to be returned to aforesaid landlords viz. Bhavani, Sitaram and Kashiram each being entitled to one fourth of the lands.

2. Tenancy appeals bearing nos. 229, 230 and 231 of 1961 by Shamu Kashiram Mahajan against order of the tahsildar dated 12-12-1960 before the Special Deputy Collector resulted in remand of the matter and on remand, the Mamlatdar-Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Raver, by order dated 30-07-1962 confirmed earlier order dated 12-12-1960. Though Sitaram and Kashiram had preferred appeal bearing No. 137 of 1962 against order dated 30-07-1962, the same was dismissed on 14-04-1963 by the Collector, Jalgaon. In said proceedings it transpired that Sitaram had already land up to celling limit and as such his one fourth share in group A lands was proposed to be disposed of in accordance with Section 32 (P) of the BTAL Act. Pursuant to the same, in the proceedings bearing Tenancy Case No. 5 of 1963 under Section 32 (P) of the BTAL Act in respect of said surplus land of Sitaram, an order dated 21-01-1964 came to be passed allotting said land to Kashiram Ganu Mahajan which was to the extent of 4 acres and one half guntha. After 1964, the land had been enjoyed by said Kashiram and his cousin as owners all along.

3. It appears that in compliance with the orders passed in 1964, the purchase price came to be paid and requisite certificate under the BTAL Act had been intended, and considering that Kashiram did not hold land upto celling limit, certificate purportedly under section 32(M) of the BTAL Act was issued in favour of Kashiram.

4. In 1982, original petitioners no. 2 to 4 purchased the land holdings from gut no. 86 from Onkar Kashiram and Bhavani Gaba Mahajan (which, according the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not require any confirmation since land held is free from tenancy proceedings) which came to them pursuant to order dated 12-12-1960. Said petitioners were intending to purchase lands which came to Kashiram Ganu's way under the orders dated 21-01-1964. As such an application came to be made by Onkar pursuant to section 43 of the BTAL Act seeking permission to purchase of said one fourth share.

5. It appears that present respondents no. 1 to 3- the heirs of Shamu Kashiram purportedly filed appeal pursuant to section 74 of the BTAL Act claiming that intending sellers are not required to seek permission, raising questions whether the holders of the disputed land are entitled to seek permission for sale, whether intending purchasers can be said to be co-holders and whether they would be entitled to purchase the lands without consent of remaining co-owners and further that whether the heirs of Shamu Kashiram Maharajah would have preferential right to purchase the property.

6. The authority – Sub Divisional Offi