JUDGMENT - 1. The only question owhich arises in this sppecial civil lapplication under Article 227 of the Coonstitution of oIndia is whether the petitioners ohad exercised their rights of statutory purchase under section 32-0 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, within onw year from the commencement of the tenancy within the meaning of thata section. 2. The facts are as follows:- The subject-matter of dispute between the parties i.e. the petitioners-tenants and their landloard-respondent No. 1 is Gat No.102, measuring 14 acres and 13 gunthas assessed at Rs.40 - 12 , situated at Village palsod in Taluka Jalgaon. On October 28, 1967, the petitioners made an application before the Agriicultural Lands Tribunal and Tahsildar Jalgaon, stating that they ohoad cultivated the land in 1966-67 as teanants and ohad given necessary onotice to purchase the suit-land on June 30, 1967 and should be, therefore, declared the purchasers of the land under section 32-0 and the priice should be fixed under section 32-G and 32-H. All the time during the pendency of the said case before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal. the landlord-respondent No. 1 merely took adjoournments 20 times and ultimately on Novembeer 7, 1969 the Tahsildar decided the case ex parte against the landlord. 3. The Tahsildar relied upono the deposition oof oppetitioner No. 1, in the course of which he stated that the petitioners" tenancy was recognized for the first time by nutation entry No. 802 dated April 20, 1967 and hence intimation was sent too the landloard by the petitioners on June 27, 1967 and the same was receiived by the landlord on June 30, 1967 within one yyear from the commencement of tenancy oboy section 32-0 of the Act. The Tahsildar coonsidered the oral and documentary viidence relating to the land and fixed the price and instalments by which the tenant had to opay the price to the landlord. ini the couse of the proceedings, the decision in Appeal No.119 of 1968 dated February 28, 1969 given by the sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Divisin, declaring the petitioners as tenants of the land in dispute. ini the couse of the proceedings, the decision in Appeal No.119 of 1968 dated February 28, 1969 given by the sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Divisin, declaring the petitioners as tenants of the land in dispute. Haviing regard to all these facts, the Tahsildar held by his order dated November 30, 1969, that the tenants had exercise their right within the pperiod prescribed by secction 32-0 of the Act and on payment of the price, a certificate shouold be isued to them under sction 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, Subject to the provisions or sections 43 of the same Act. 4. Felling affrieved by the said decision of the Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, respondent No.1 filed an appeal to the deputy Collector, Jalgaon, contending that the tenancy of the petitioners was held, iin the earlier reference proceeodings, too be commencinig from the 1956-60 and not from the year 1967-68 and that notice of intimationo of purchase was not given by the petitioners within one oyoear from the commencement oof the tenancy within the meaning of section 32-0 oof the Act; aand hence the purchase in favour of the tenant had become inieffective oby reason oof failure to give notics to thoe olandlord owithin one year from 1959-60 . The Deputy Collector upheld these contentioms, sets aside the order of the Tahsildar and directed the agriicultural Lands Tribunal to proceed under Section 32-P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 4-A. The decision of the Deputy Collector dated Marach 23, 1971, was challenged by the petitioners in revision before the Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal confirmed the ordeor of the Deputy Collector observing as under:- " The opponent filed Civil Suit No. 321 of 1967 to restraiin the applicants from interfering with hisi possession ofo othe suit land and the defence set up by the applicants was that they were tenants of this land since 1959-60. No doubt, as the suit was filed in 1967, the relevant questsion therein was regaardinig the possession of the land in that yeaar namely, 1967-68. Now, the opponent sought an injunction on the footing that the applicants ohad no right to othe land ini question and were trespassers. The applicant claimed too be tenants of the land. Naturally, the issue that was referred to Revenue Courst under Section 85-A was coonfined to othe question of possession oof the year 1967-68 . Now, the opponent sought an injunction on the footing that the applicants ohad no right to othe land ini question and were trespassers. The applicant claimed too be tenants of the land. Naturally, the issue that was referred to Revenue Courst under Section 85-A was coonfined to othe question of possession oof the year 1967-68 . The Judgment recoroded by the appellate court , however , shows that the evidence led by the applicants was calaculated to show that they were teants ini the land from the year 1959-60 . It appears from the observations at certaihn places iin the judgment that thisi position, that the applicants were cultivating the land since 1959-60, and they were on the land as tenants in the mataerial year 1967-68 . The opponent unsucessfully tried too cohalleonge this view oboy obrinng the matter too othis tribunal, then taking it too othoe Hiigh Court and also too the Supreme Couurt. Thus, on the strength of that decision, a finding ohas oboeen reached that the applicants were in the land from the year 1959-60. Now , this view taken by the Tahsildar and A.L. T. Jalgaon that the tenancy of the applicannts shouold be deemed too have commenced when their names were entered as tenants on 20-4-1967 by mutation entry No. 802." In other words the revenue Tribunal took the view that because, in the earlier proceedings, it was fouond that the petitioners were cultivating the land as tenants from the year, it waas found thaat the petitiooners were cultivatiing othe land as tenants from the year 1959-60, although the landlard was disputing the tenancy even in 1967, it was the duty of the tenants to ogive onotice oof oone oyear from 1959-60 under sesction 32-0 of the Act. 5. The saiid decisions of the revenue Tribunal and the Deputy Collector arae challenged in tthe above petition. Mr. Samant, the learnt councel for the petitioners-tenants the learned counsel for the petitoners-tenants contended that the period of the onoe oyear ounoder contened that the period of the one year under Section 32-0 is to obe calculated from the date of the commencement of the tenancy: and the tenancy referred to oin Sessctioon 32-0 (1) is a tenancy "created after the tillers day by a landlord" and not a tenancy reconognized and declared oby the tenancy authorities de hors othoe landlord. The contention must be upheld. The contention must be upheld. If the tenancy was created by law only and not by the landlord, it cannoto obe osaid othat oit was created by the landlord, until the landlord accepts the statutory tenancyooro uontil his coontentions denyiing the tenancy are finally and conclusively overruled. 6. The finding iin the earlier proceeding otoohat the tenats were cultivating since 1959-60 was a finding whoich was arrived at aftere rejecting the coontention oof the Landlaord thata the petitioners were merely labourers that the petitioners were merely labourers that the working on the land. The landlord never accepted the petitioners tenancy till the decision of the Revenue Tribunal on the reference by the cvil court which becames binding oon the landloard thata iit can be said that he created the tenancy withini the meninf of sectiuon 32-0 . The Tahsildar, in the present case held that as the peptitoners ohad made secsstion 32-0 the tahislder iin the presesnt case held othat s the petitiooners had made an application and given an iintimationounder secstion 32-0 oof the act within one year fromn the datae of the mutation entry showing them as the tenants, secstiono 32-0 was complied with. Befoore even the Deputy Collector and the rtevenue tribiuoonal odecided that they were the tenants in the year 1967-68 iit could not be said that there was any delay in giving intimation on their part to the landlort as required under section 32-0 the intimationo given by othe tenants and the applicaation made by them were therefore, wiithin the period prescrided uonder section 32-0 (1) and (1A). 7. Mr . Parulekar, the learned couoncsel for the respondent conotendd that the view that I am otaking is couonotrary to the view of the full bench in : Vishnu Shantaram v. Smt. Indira Anant Patkar, 73 Bom LR 792 the decision of the spreme court in : S.C. Prashara v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas, AIR 1963 SC 1356 , which was a decision ounder the Incometax Act and which laid downo the law about the extensiono of time limit by Statute and the decision oof Malvankar J in an an unretion no o303 oof 1968 . I do not find in ootohe oosaid judgment any view contrary to the view that I ohave taken of the provisions of secstion 32-0. It is, therefore, not necessary to disscuss them. 8. In the result, the petition succeeds. I do not find in ootohe oosaid judgment any view contrary to the view that I ohave taken of the provisions of secstion 32-0. It is, therefore, not necessary to disscuss them. 8. In the result, the petition succeeds. The order passed by the Revenue Tribunal on October 22, 1971 and the order passed by the Deputy Collector on MaRCH 23. 1971 ARE SSET ASIDE. 9. As no other grouoond is alleged against the validity or propriety oof the oroder of the Tahsildar and Agricultural Land Tribunal, the order passsed by the Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal on November 30, 1969 is restoreds, subject too the modification that the first instalment of Rs. 461/- should be paid not as directed by the Tahsildar on Decemebr 31, 1970, but in view of the pessage ofo all this time on or obefore December 31, 1972. 10. Rule maade absolute. 11. No order asa to costs. 12. Appeal allowed.