( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2980 OF 1990 Patloba s/o Bhaurao Dighule, R/o Malhiwra, Tq. Ambejogai, District Beed. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Manik Namdeo Dighule, R/o Malhiwra, Tq. Ambejogai, District Beed. 2. Vikram Namdeo Dighule, R/o as above. 3. Prabhu Namdeo Dighule, R/o as above. 4. Gopinath Namdeo Dighule, u/g real mother, Satyabhamabai w/o Namdeo Dighule, R/o as above. 5. Bhaskar Namdeo Dighule, u/g as above. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. H.K. Munde, advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 19th June, 2009] PER COURT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge judgement and order dated 08-08-1990 rendered ( 2 ) by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (M.R.T.) in file No. 20-B-89 and also judgement and order rendered by the learned Deputy Collector (Land Records), Beed, dated 28-02-1989 in file No. 87-TNC-A-35. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that the two (2) parcels of the land bearing Survey No. 82 to the extent of 4 acres 17 gunthas and bearing survey No. 68 to the extent of 1 acre 13 gunthas were owned by Namdeo Dighule. The Tahsildar declared the said two (2) lands in favour of the petitioner, holding that he was the protected tenant and, therefore, was entitled to purchase the same under section 38 (6) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, “the HT&AL Act“). He deposited the amount of price which was determined by the Tahsildar. The land-holder challenged the order by filing an appeal. The appeal was allowed by the learned Deputy Collector, Ambejogai. The learned Deputy Collector (Land Records) came to the conclusion that the lands could not be declared in favour of the petitioner because his holding comprised of 61 acres 3 gunthas which was double to the ceiling. ( 3 ) The learned Deputy Collector held that section 38 of the HT&AL Act would be attracted only when the tenant owns lands than one family holding. On facts, it was noticed that holding of the petitioner was not less than one family holding and, therefore, he was ineligible to claim declaration as a tenant. Therefore, the declaration was cancelled. The petitioner preferred revision application before the M.R.T., which was allowed partly and the matter was remanded. Again, however, the Tribunals rendered decisions against him which are being impugned vide the instant petition. 3. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. 4. Mr. Munde states that the petitioner has purchased the lands in question vide registered Sale- Deed dated 07-11-1978 from the legal representatives of respondent No.1. He has placed on record a copy of the sale-deed (marked “X”). Thus, during pendency of the petition, the petitioner became owner on account of inter viva-voce of the said lands. The question about ( 4 ) tenancy of the petitioner has become redundant in view of the subsequent development. Needless to say, the petition will have to be disposed of in view of subsequent development. 5. The petition is accordingly disposed of in as much as the petitioner has acquired the ownership rights on account of the transfer of the lands in question. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP2980-90