http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: VISHWANATH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PRADHU AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/10/1998

BENCH: G.T.NANAVATI, S.P.KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:  JUDGMENT Nanavati.J. An 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. Appeal  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. Having  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.