JUDGMENT
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated 15-3-1990 in Application No. MRT/NS/VI/4.88 (TNC. B. 260/88).
2. The petitioners are landlords in respect of the land situated at Shirdhon, Taluka. Koregaon in Satara District. According to the petitioners the land held by the tenants on the Tiller’s day (i.e. 1-4-1957) was in excess of the ceiling limit and therefore, the tenants were not entitled to purchase the subject land. That contention was accepted by the Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T. Koregaon by order dated 27th February, 1987. The tenants challenged that decision before the S.D.O. Koregaon by way of tenancy Appeal No. 26 of 1987. The Appellate Authority on the other hand held that the restriction of ceiling limit would not apply to purchase of land by the tenant on the Tiller’s day as that is not required under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. In the circumstances, the appeal preferred by the respondents tenants was allowed and the first authority was directed to determine the purchase price in respect of the suit land so that the same can be paid by the tenants towards the purchase price of the suit land. The petitioners filed revision application before the Tribunal challenging the view taken by the Appellate Authority essentially contending that even in spite of the statutory purchase by the tenants on the Tiller’s day under Section 32G, the tenant would be entitled to purchase only if his holding of other land as owner, does not exceed ceiling area. In other words, tenants would be entitled to purchase tenanted land only upto the ceiling area after calculating holding of the tenant of other land owned by him. The Tribunal, however, affirmed the view taken by the Appellate Court and dismissed the revision application.
3. To my mind, the authorities below have clearly overlooked the mandate of Section 32A of the Act. Sections 32A and 32B read thus:
“32A. A tenant shall be deemed to have purchased land under Section 32–(1) in the case of a tenant who does not hold any land as owner but holds land as tenant in excess of the ceiling area, upto the ceiling area; (2) in the case of a tenant who holds land as owner below the ceiling area, such part of the land only as will raise his holding to the extent of the ceiling area.
32B. If a tenant holds land partly as owner and partly as tenant but the area of the land held as owner is equal to or exceeds the ceiling area, he shall not be deemed to have purchased the land held by him as a tenant under Section 32.”
On plain reading of this provision, it will have to be held that the tenants would be entitled to purchase the land only upto the ceiling area and for which purpose the authorities would be obliged to take into account his holding of all other lands as owner on the relevant date. In the present case, this exercise has not been undertaken by any of the authorities below. The first authority merely adverted to the total holding of the tenants without applying itself as to whether the said holding by the tenants was as owners. Besides, the Tahsildar has not positively computed the exact surplus area, whereas the Appellate Authority proceeds on entirely different basis. Assuming that the tenants are holding other land as owners, that does not mean that the tenants would not be entitled to purchase any land at all. The Authority has to examine the fact as to whether after taking into consideration all the other lands held by the tenants as owners on the relevant date they were still falling short of the permissible ceiling area. If the authority was to hold that the tenants were already holding land as owners in excess of ceiling area only then the statutory purchase by the tenants in respect of the land would become ineffective within the meaning of Section 32P of the Act. But if the authorities were to hold that the total holding of the tenants on the Tiller’s day as owners of other land was less than the ceiling area then to the extent of the deficit area, the tenants would be entitled to purchase the tenanted land and to that extent the purchase will not become ineffective. This exercise has not been undertaken by the authorities below.
4. In the circumstances, the proper order will be to remand the case to the Tahsildar to re-examine the case in accordance with law. All questions are left open. The Tahsildar shall give opportunity to both the sides to produce relevant materials on record in support of their respective case relevant to decide the issue regarding holding of the tenants and entitlement of the tenants to purchase the suit land. This be done within 3 months from the receipt of writ of this Court. Petition succeeds to the above extent. No order as to costs.