( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 998 OF 1991 Smt. Vanabai Chindhu Mhaske, R/at Kekat-Nimbhore, Taluka Jamner, District Jalgaon. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Shri Ramdas Dhondu Kulkarni (Petition abated against this respondent) 2. Shri Balkrishna Dhondu Kulkarni 3. Shri Uttam Kisan Patil Since deceased, by L.Rs. 3A. Murlidhar Uttam Patil’ 3B. Chakradhar Uttam Patil 3C. Bapu Uttam Patil 3D. Appa Uttam Patil 3E. Smt. Dwarkabai Uttam Patil 3F. Smt. Taibai Vithal Patil 3G. Smt. Venubai Uttam Patil All r/o and post Kekat- Nimbhore, Taluka Jamner, District Jalgaon. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. L.V. Sangit, advocate holding for Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel, for the petitioner. Mr. P.R. Patil, advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. None for other respondents. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 28th January, 2010] ( 2 ) ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns judgement and order rendered by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay, in Tenancy revision No. 81/1987. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (M.R.T.) confirmed orders rendered by learned Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer, Chalisgaon in Tenancy Case No. 8/1977 and Tenancy Appeal No. 16/1982 while dismissing the revision application. 2. Indisputably, land Gat No. 336, admeasuring 2 hectares 13 Ares was originally owned by one Balkrishna Dattatya Naik. He had given the land for cultivation to husband of the petitioner and father of the respondents No. 1 and 2, namely, Chindhu Narayan Mhaske and Dhondu Ganesh Kulkarni, respectively. The latters were entitled to purchase the said land as tenants under section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, “the BT&AL Act”). They purchased the said land to the extent of half share each. Somewhere in 1969, Chindhu Mhaske agreed to alienate his ( 3 ) half share, admeasuring 1 hectare 87 Ares land, in favour of deceased respondent No. 3 – Uttam Patil. He had inducted said Uttam Patil into actual possession thereof, in pursuance to the agreement of sale and, therefore, the latter was cultivating the said half share of Chindhu Mhaske. 3. The deceased respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 2, who are sons of Dhondu Kulkarni, approached Sub Divisional Officer, Chalisgaon seeking ejectment of the unauthorized person (prospective purchaser) who claimed to have been inducted in possession of the half share by deceased Chindhu Mhaske. They asserted that the alienation was totally illegal and contrary to the provisions of the BT&AL Act. They submitted, therefore, that the deceased respondent No. 3 ought to have been evicted under section 84 of the BT&AL Act. The M.R.T. held that since deceased respondent No. 3 Uttam was in possession on strength of a registered agreement of sale, it could not be said that his possession was unauthorized and, therefore, was pleased to set aside the order rendered by the Sub Divisional ( 4 ) Officer under section 84 of the BT&AL Act for ejectment of said Uttam. The M.R.T. directed to initiate proceedings under section 84C of the BT&AL Act. Consequently, the Tahsildar initiated the proceedings vide TNC Case No. 8/1977. He held that the transfer was without permission of the competent authority and was, therefore, void under section 34G of the BT&AL Act. He further held that the half share of deceased Chindhu Mhaske was liable to be put up for disposal under section 32P of the BT&AL Act. The learned Deputy Collector confirmed the said order and so also, the M.R.T. dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent No. 2. Though served, none appeared for the respondents No.3A to 3G, who are the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 3. The original respondent No. 1 – Ramdas died. The petition abated against him due to non-substitution of his legal representatives. ( 5 ) 5. The fact that deceased Chindhu Mhaske and Dhondu Kulkarni were jointly cultivating the entire land which originally bore Survey No. 229 as tenants is not in dispute. It is undisputed that both of them were entitled to purchase the said lands being the tenants thereof. The original land owner never disputed the statutory alienation made in favour of said Chindhu Mhaske and Dhondu Kulkarni under section 32G of the BT&AL Act. Needless to say, they were the only persons entitled to purchase the land in question due to existence of their tenancy rights. The alienation made by Chindhu Mhaske in favour of deceased respondent No. 3 Uttam was through an agreement of sale which was a registered document. He had transferred possession in favour of the deceased respondent No. 3 Uttam in 1969 itself, pursuant to the agreement of sale and, as such, his tenancy rights were liable to be forfeited due to breach of the conditions of the statutory purchase as enumerated under section 32G of the BT&AL Act. It is explicit, therefore, that possession of deceased respondent No. 3 Uttam was that of an unauthorized purchaser because no permission for alienation was ( 6 ) obtained by deceased Chindhu Mhaske. As a necessary corollary of this development, the rights of another tenant i.e. deceased Dhondu Kulkarni could be exercised because of his continuation of the joint tenancy rights. It is obvious that he should have preferential right to purchase the tenanted land when deceased Chindhu Mhaske decided to alienate in favour of third party i.e. deceased respondent No. 3 Uttam. 6. The M.R.T. has observed that the two (2) shares in the land, to the extent of half each, were being separately cultivated by deceased Dhondu Kulkarni and husband of the petitioner i.e. Chindhu Mhaske. It is pertinent to note that the purchase price of the entire land, inclusive of both the half shares, was fixed at Rs. 4020/- on 13-02-1962 in the proceedings of Tenancy Case No. 68/11/62 as provided under section 32G of the BT&AL Act. It is obvious, therefore, that the tenancy was indivisible. The prospective purchaser from deceased Chindhu Mhaske could not have any better right to continue his possession. Considering these aspects, the concurrent findings of the Tenancy Tribunals, which are ( 7 ) confirmed by the M.R.T., are quite legal and proper. The M.R.T. has taken due care while dismissing the revision application, to ensure that due procedure under sub- sections (3) and (4) of section 84C of the BT&AL Act should be followed while effecting disposal of the disputed half share of the land i.e. survey No. 229/1. It goes without saying, therefore, that the impugned orders require no interference. 7. In the result, I do not find any merit in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp998-91