JUDGMENT - M.P. KANADE, J.:---The petitioner Smt. Basavva w/o Virbhadra is a widow, her husband having died on March 15, 1954. She was only two daughters and no son, and therefore, she resides with the family of her brother Gangadhar Sakhare. 2. The disputed land is Survey No. 55/3, admeasuring 11 acres, 12 Gunthas, situated at Village Nesari in Gadhinglaj Taluka. The disputed land originally belonged to her late husband and she came in possession of the said land as a land-holder after the demise of her husband. The respondent Mohammad Sultan Wetangis name was entered in the record-of-rights along with Sakhare in respect of the disputed land. In the year 1971, the Special Tahsildar, Gadhinglaj, commenced proceedings under section 32(1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Tenancy Act). It appears that the Special Tahsildar, Gadhinglaj, recorded the statements of the petitioner, the respondent and some other persons. It is not clear from he record as to whether the said statements were recorded in the presence of the respective parties as there is no cross-examination by the respective party of the witnesses produced on their behalf. The learned special Tahsildar, having inquired into the matter, came to the conclusion that respondent was a tenant, and he was in possession of the disputed land on June 15, 1955, and he was dispossessed by the landlady before 1-4-1957. It was further found that the disputed land was not converted to N.A. user. While deciding Issue No. 3, the learned Special Tahsildar has observed as under :--- "From the relevant extract of V.F. 7/12, of the suit land, it is clear that Mohammad Sultan Watangi was in lawful possession of six acres of area out of the suit land on the appointed date, viz. 15-6-1955. Besides the V.F.V. Diary No. 1999 which was done by Talathi on 30-3-1957, has been rejected by the Ten. 15-6-1955. Besides the V.F.V. Diary No. 1999 which was done by Talathi on 30-3-1957, has been rejected by the Ten. A.K. with specific remarks that there was "Wahiwat " of the tenant in the suit land in the year 1955-56." and with these observations the finding is recorded that--- " ......this must have been done by him after local equity." and accordingly decided the Issue No. 3 and by his order held that the possession of an area of six acres, out of the disputed land which the respondent was actually cultivating on the appointed date, should be restored to the tenant after the period of the appeal is over. 3. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the Special Tahsildar, preferred an appeal to the learned Assistant Collector, who, while allowing the appeal observed : "It was pointed out that the procedure adopted by the lower Court was wrong and against the provisions of the Mamlatdars" Court Act. Two depositions have been recorded behind the back of the other party, giving no chance for cross-examination." However, in the judgment of the Assistant Collector, I do not find that any finding has been recorded with regard to the tenancy rights of the respondent. But, in his view the petitioner admittedly, being a landlady and a widow, the provisions of sections 32 to 32-R (both inclusive) which include section 32(1-B), are not and cannot be applied to the facts of the instant case. In the result, he allowed the appeal. 4. The respondent, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant Collector, submitted a revision application to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Kolhapur. The learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held that the provisions of section 32(1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, would apply in a case of a widow landlady or a disabled or minor landlord. The provisions of the said section would apply to a case even where the tenant may not be a deemed purchaser on the tillers day. Taking that view, the Revision Application was allowed and the order passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and that of the first Court was restored. 5. The petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. Taking that view, the Revision Application was allowed and the order passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and that of the first Court was restored. 5. The petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. Mhamane, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that none of the courts below have considered the fact as to whether the respondent was really a tenant and whether he was in possession of the disputed land on June 15, 1955 as a tenant. Mr. Mhamane pointed out the observations made by the learned Assistant Collector, that the procedure followed by the Tahsildar was not in accordance with law. The statements were not recorded by the Special Tahsildar in the presence of the respective parties, and that it is necessary that the matter may be returned to the Special Tahsildar for recording evidence in the presence of the parties and then recording a finding as to whether the respondent was in possession of the disputed land on June 15, 1955 as a tenant, and then consider i.e. as to whether the provisions of section 32(1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy Act would apply to the facts of the present case. Mr. Mhamane further argued that having regard to the language used in section 32(1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, it appears that this is a combined operation of putting the tenant in the possession of the land if he was in actual possession of the said land on April 1, 1957 and then immediately declaring him to be a deemed purchaser of the said land. If the tenant becomes a deemed purchaser, the enabling provisions of section 32(1-B) empowers the Special Tahsildar to put that tenant in possession of the land so that he should be able to enjoy the fruits of his having becomes the owner of the said land. 7. Mr. If the tenant becomes a deemed purchaser, the enabling provisions of section 32(1-B) empowers the Special Tahsildar to put that tenant in possession of the land so that he should be able to enjoy the fruits of his having becomes the owner of the said land. 7. Mr. Bhimrao Naik, who appears on behalf of the respondent-tenant, strenuously argued that under the provisions of section 32(1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy Act the tenant who is dispossessed before the 1st day of April, 1957, otherwise than in the manner and by an order of the Tashildar as provided in the provisions of section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, and is not in possession of the land on the said date, he should be first put in possession under the said provisions and then to find out as to whether he could be declared to be a deemed purchaser of the land. Mr. Naik emphasised the words used in section 32(1-B), namely " and thereafter, the provisions of the section and sections 32-A to 32-R (both inclusive) shall in so far as they may be applicable, apply thereto" Mr. Bhimrao Naik submitted that section 32-F would not apply so for as declaring the tenant as deemed purchaser is concerned . He submitted that section 32-F will have to be ignored or that it would be redundant in so for as the exercise of powers under section 32(1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, was concerned. It was further argued by him that by virtue of the amendment of section 70(kk), the Tahsildar is invested with jurisdiction to hold an inquiry and restore possession of land under sub-section (1-B) of section 32(1-B) of the Act. So for as the proceedings under section 32-G are concerned, they are before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal. The Tahsildar while exercising powers under section 70(kk) must first put the tenant in possession of the land and then refer the matter to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal to determine as to whether the tenant can be a deemed purchaser. 8. Having heard both the Counsel on the question of interpretation of section 32(1-B), it is clear to my mind that section 32(1-B) would come into play when a tenant becomes a deemed purchaser of the land. 8. Having heard both the Counsel on the question of interpretation of section 32(1-B), it is clear to my mind that section 32(1-B) would come into play when a tenant becomes a deemed purchaser of the land. The last part of section 32(1-B) lays down that--- ".......and thereafter the provisions of this section 32-A to 32-R (both inclusive) shall, in so far as they may be applicable, apply thereto subject to the modification that the tenant shall be deemed to have purchased the land on the date on which the land is restored to him." In may view, there is no ambiguity about the combined operation of the two acts, viz., putting the tenant in possession of the land and declaring him to be a deemed purchaser. Having regard to the entire scheme of the Bombay Tenancy Act . I find that there are three sections in the entire Act, namely, section 29, section 84 and section 32(1-B), which empower the authorities to pass an order for possession in favour, either of the landlord or a tenant. Section 29 of the Act deals with a case where there is a dispute as to the possession of the land and where there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant. Section 84 deals with the landlord or tenant and a person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in the possession of the land, whereas section 32(1-B) of the Act deals with a case where the tenant is to be put in possession of the land if he is not in possession on the tillers day, namely 1-4-1957 and he is to be declared a deemed purchaser of the said land. 9. Prima facie it appears to me that the courts below should consider as to whether the provisions of section 32(1-B) would apply to a case where the tenant is not likely to be a deemed purchaser of the land. None of the courts below have properly applied their mind to the real meaning and purport of the section 32(1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. 10. In order to attract the provisions of section 32(1-B) of the Act, it is necessary that in the first instance the person must be a lawful tenant of the land. None of the courts below have properly applied their mind to the real meaning and purport of the section 32(1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. 10. In order to attract the provisions of section 32(1-B) of the Act, it is necessary that in the first instance the person must be a lawful tenant of the land. Secondly, he must be in possession of the land in dispute on June 15, 1955, and that he should have been dispossessed on or before April 1, 1957 otherwise than in the manner and by an order of the Tahsildar as provided in section 29 of the Act and that the land is not put to non-agricultural as on or before the last mentioned date. In the present case there is no clear-cut finding on the appreciation of the evidence on record, that the respondent-tenant was a lawful tenant and that he was in possession of the disputed land on June 15, 1955. In the absence of such a finding it is futile to consider the applicability of the provisions of section 32(1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. 11. I am not satisfied with the manner in which the learned Special Tahsildar has conducted the inquiry. The Tahsildar should record the evidence in the presence of the parties, giving an opportunity to the other side to cross-examine the witnesses produced before him and consider the documentary evidence before him and then record a finding. No doubt, the extracts of the record of rights will have an evidentiary value, and there is a presumption attaching to the said entries in the record of rights, and it should not be lost sight of that the presumption attaching to the entries in the record of rights would be a rebuttable presumption. No doubt, the extracts of the record of rights will have an evidentiary value, and there is a presumption attaching to the said entries in the record of rights, and it should not be lost sight of that the presumption attaching to the entries in the record of rights would be a rebuttable presumption. The learned Tahsildar and the other authorities below should apply their mind to the Act while keeping in mind the observation made above, and then appreciate the evidence and record a finding as to whether the respondent was the lawful tenant and that he was in possession of the land on June 15, 1955, and thereafter consider as to whether the provisions of section 32(1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy Act would apply to the facts of this case having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a widow on the tillers day, and where landlady is a widow and the tillers day is postponed till the said disability is over. I would like to make it clear that the observations made by me with regard to the interpretation of section 32(1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy Act should not prejudice the authorities below to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the said provisions would apply to a case where the tillers day is postponed, having regard to the provisions of section 32-F of the Bombay Tenancy Act. 12. With these observations, the rule is made absolute. The matter is remanded to the Special Tahsildar, Gadhnglaj to make a fresh inquiry, giving opportunity to both the parties to lead oral and documentary evidence. He shall record evidence in the presence of the parties and then record his finding as to whether the respondent is a lawful tenant and that he was in possession of the land as a tenant on June 15, 1955, and then decide as to whether the provisions of section 32(1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy would apply to the facts of the case and decide the case in accordance with law. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. -----