NIVRUTTI ANNA KADAM Vs. NAMDEO BALA SAWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioners challenge the order dated 9-10-2001 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, rejecting the application for review of its judgment dated 30-10-2000 passed in Revision Application filed on 19-1-1992. By the impugned judgment application for review by the earlier judgment has been rejected. The judgment in the revision application was to the effect that the revision application filed by the petitioner against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pandharpur dated 18-11-1992 was dismissed. Order dated 18-11-1992 of the Sub-Divisional Officer was in the appeal filed by the petitioners being Tenancy Appeal No. 99 of 1988 against the order dated 13-6-1988 passed by Tenancy Aval Karkun in Tenancy Case No. 29 of 1976. The said appeal was dismissed and the order of the Aval Karkun dismissing the application of the petitioners for resumption of land for personal bona fide cultivation was confirmed.

(3.) THE impugned judgments are sought to be challenged on the ground that the claim of the petitioners for resumption of land for personal cultivation has been rejected in contravention of the provisions of section 23 (F) (1) (a) (sic 32-F (1) (a)) read with 32 (1) (1-A) and section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 hereinafter called as "the said Act". Reliance is also placed in the decision of the learned Single Judge in the matter of (Rangrao Nivritti Lad and others v. Vishnu Joti Thorbole and another) 2001 (1) Bom. C. R. 157 : 2001 (1) Mh. L. J. 647. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent having failed to exercise his right to purchase within the prescribed period under section 31 read with section 32 (F) (1) (a) of the said Act, the respondent has ceased to be the tenant or deemed purchaser in relation to the suit property and therefore the application filed by the petitioners under section 33-B read with 29 of the said Act, ought to have been allowed in terms of provisions of section 32-F read with section 32-P of the said Act.