Vs. Pradhu & Ors  INSC 502 (15 October 1998)
Application filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for declaring the sate dt.
17.2.76 executed by the father of respondent no. 3-Balwant Rao in favour of
appellant Vishwanath as null and void was dismissed by the Agricultural Land
Tribunal, Latur. The Tribunal held that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were protected
tenants of the land and, therefore father of respondent No. 3 and no right to
sell it without following the procedure prescribed by Section 48 of the
Hyderabad Agricultural Lands and Tenancy Act and Rule 31 A of the Rules made
under that Act.
filed against the order of the Tribunal was dismissed by the Deputy Collector,
land Reforms, Latur. The Maharastra Revenue Tribunal allowed the revision
petition and held that the sale made by Balwant Rao's father in favour of Vishwanath
was hit by Section 48 of the Act and was, therefore, void. The appellant
feeling aggrieved by the said order approached the High Court with a writ
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court summarily
dismissed the same.
gone through the orders passed by Tehsildar, Latur, Deputy Collector, latur,
and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the material on record we are of the
view that the sale being void the Revenue Tribunal was right in allowing the
revision application. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were protected tenants and
therefore without complying with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, no
sale of the land could have been validly made. Admittedly no such procedure was
followed. Therefore, we agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and hold that
the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the
appellant. As we find no substance in the appeal, it is dismissed.