Tenants are deemed statutory owners upon completion of proceedings under the Tenancy Act, regardless of subsequent challenges by landlords.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. The present Respondents/landlords had filed an application U/s 31 read with Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act , (hereinafter referred as Tenancy Act for brevity) for possession of the land in occupation of the tenant i.e. the petitioners herein. The said proceedings were dismissed. The matter came up to this Court. This Court in Special Civil Application No.1348/772 vide its judgment dated 27/28.1.1976 remitted the matter to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal to deal with the proceedings U/s 32-G of the Tenancy Act after ascertaining the date of the order regarding the culmination of the proceedings initiated by the landlords U/s 31 of the Tenancy Act. The High Court in latter part of para 6 and 7 observed thus :

"Thus, in a case governed by the main provisions in sections 31(1) and 31(2) which deal with the exercise of the right of resumption and by the proviso to section 32(1) which deals with a case when an application under section 29 has been made, the tenant would be entitled to statutory ownership on the postponed date even during the minority or the continuance of the disability of the landlord. In such a case, there is no occasion for the applicability of the provisions of section 32F (1) of the Tenancy Act.

6. On the finding given by the revenue Tribunal that the proceedings for resumption having terminated on 3lst October 1959, it was clear that no right survived to the landlords which they could avail of after attaining majority and the provisions of section 32F(1A) could not, therefore, be relied upon by the landlord for defeating the right of ownership of the tenant. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in taking the view that if proceedings have already been taken by the landlords even before attaining majority, then the provisions of section 32F(1A) would not be attracted in the instant case.

7. The contention of Mr.Bhonsale, that there is no material on the record to show that the proceedings for resumption finally terminated on 3lst January 1959 appears to be well-founded. It is not possible to ascertain on what basis the Tribunal has made the observation that the proceedings for resumption started by the landlords terminated on 3lst January 1959. It appears that a statement to that effect must have been made at the bar. None of the two counsel for the parties was in a position to state definitely the date on which the proceedings finally terminated. To determine the date on which the tenant would be entitled to become statutory purchasers, it would be necessary to ascertain the date of the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal has remanded the matter to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal for decision according to law. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal will call upon the tenants to file a certified copy of the order of the Maharashtra Revenue in the earlier proceedings for resumption. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal will then deal with the proceedings under section 32G after ascertaining the date of the order.

8. In the view which I have taken, these petitions fail and must be rejected. Rule discharged.

However, there will be no order as to costs."

3. The said order of the High Court was sought to be reviewed vide Civil Application No. 2581/96. The High Court dismissed the said Review Application vide its judgment and order dated 28th October 1980.

4. The Tahsildar, Akole i.e. the A.L.T. after the remand of the matter by High Court fixed the purchase price at Rs.12,612/- (Rupees twelve thousand six hundred twelve) and directed the tenant to deposit the said amount in five (5) instalments with the landlords. The said order is passed by the Tahsildar on 9.4.1990. Earlier on or about