JUDGMENT - M.P. KANADE, J.:---A short question involved in this Special Civil Application filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is as to whether the provisions of section 43 read with section 84-C or section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bombay Tenancy Act") would apply to the facts of the present case. 2. Undisputed facts of this case are that the land R.S. No. 95/1 admeasuring 13 acres 33 gunthas situated at village Kagal, District Kolhapur was owned by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the same was in possession of one Gopal Krishan Jadhav as a tenant. In the proceeding started under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy Act, Gopal Krishan Jadhav was declared as deemed purchaser and the price of the land was fixed at Rs. 2000/-. It was directed that the said amount should be deposited by the tenant in 20 instalments. It appears that the tenant paid only five instalments and ceased to make any further deposits thereafter. 3. The said tenant Gopal Krishan Jadhav since deceased transferred the land in favour of respondent No. 5 under a registered gift-deed, dated November 29, 1965. It is, therefore, respondent Nos. 1 to 4-original owners filed Tenancy Case No. 80 of 1968 in the Court of the Tahsildar, Kagal challenging the validity of the said transfer of the land under the gift-deed. The learned Tahsildar, Kagal started inquiry on the basis of the application made by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and on consideration of the evidence on record held that the transfer effected by the deceased tenant Gopal Krishna Jadhav was in contravention of the provisions of section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act and therefore, the said transaction was declared invalid in terms of section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The learned Tahsildar by the judgment and order, dated April 29, 1969 declared that the transfer of the suit land by gift-deed was invalid and the suit land should be vested in the State Government. He further directed that the disposal of the suit land should be made in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy Act. He further directed that the disposal of the suit land should be made in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy Act. From the record of this case, it appears that appeal was filed by the widow of the deceased Gopal Krishna Jadhav, but the said appeal was dismissed. The transferee-respondent No. 5 did not file any appeal. Similarly, the original owners respondent Nos. 1 to 4 also did not file any appeal against the said order. It is, however, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 made a representation to the District Collector, Kolhapur that the land in dispute should be transferred to them as they as agriculturists. By a letter, dated February 14, 1976, the District Collectors office informed respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that their application is disposed of and filed and they expressed their regret that the land cannot be restored to the original owners. The original owners-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 feeling aggrieved by the decision of the District Collector submitted Revision Application to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal being No. MRT.KP. 95/76. The said representation made by the original owners was treated as an appeal by the learned Member of the Tribunal without expressing any opinion as to whether the said representation was in the nature of an appeal or otherwise and proceeded with the revision application. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the said revision application inter alia contended that the tenant who was deemed purchaser had not paid the entire purchase price of the land and therefore the sale in favour of the tenant must be declared ineffective and the land must be restored to them under the provisions of section 32-P of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The landlords contention seems to have been accepted by the learned Member of the Tribunal. It is observed in the judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that : "Now, it is not disputed before me that the proceedings started under section 32-G had bot been finally concluded. In that the entire price was not recovered with the result that certificate under section 32-M remained to be granted. It is observed in the judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that : "Now, it is not disputed before me that the proceedings started under section 32-G had bot been finally concluded. In that the entire price was not recovered with the result that certificate under section 32-M remained to be granted. Therefore the suit land cannot be said to have been purchased by the tenant within the meaning of section 43 of the Tenancy Act." It is further observed that : "It is again not disputed that the proceedings under section 84-C were started on an assumption that the suit land was purchased by the tenant but as we have seen, this was not the case and therefore there was no warrant for taking proceeding under section 84-C. In that view of the matter, I hold that the proceedings under section 84-C were incompetent and the orders whatever might have come to be passed in that regard are a nullity." 4. In the subsequent para of the judgment the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal further observed that : "Evidently, the revision application sought an entirely different redress when they complained against the transfer effected by the tenant. The purport of their complaint obviously was that either the price should be recovered and paid to them failing which action to dispose of the land in accordance with the provisions of section 32-P should be taken. Unfortunately this aspect of the matter was lost sight of. I am therefore constrained to remit the matter to the trial Court for taking suitable action in terms of section 32-K to start with and dispose of one matter according to law." While making the said observations, the Tribunal was pleased to allow revision application and remitted the case to the trial Court for fresh disposal according to law in the light of the observations made in the judgment with reference to the provisions of sections 32-K, 32-M and 32-P of the Act. This order of remand is challenged by the petitioner in this Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. It is necessary to mention here that the petitioner is a society by name "Kagal Education Society Ltd." at Kagal to whom the disputed land is allotted, while disposing the same under the provisions of section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy Act. 5. It is necessary to mention here that the petitioner is a society by name "Kagal Education Society Ltd." at Kagal to whom the disputed land is allotted, while disposing the same under the provisions of section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The petitioner has constructed some structures on the said land and the society is in actual possession thereof. It is, therefore, the petitioner has challenged the order of remand passed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. 6. A short question involved in this Special Civil Application is as to whether the provisions of section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, would apply to the admitted facts of this case and consequently the provisions of section 84-C would be attracted for disposal of the land. Section 43 lays down as under : "43(1): No land purchased by a tenant under sections 32, 32-F, 32-I, 32-O, 33-C or 43-1D or sold to any person under section 32-P or 64 shall be transferred by sole, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or assignment or partitioned without the previous sanction of the Collector. Such sanction shall be given by the Collector in such circumstances, and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed by the State Government : Provided that, no such sanction shall be necessary where the land is to be mortgaged in favour of Government or a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, for raising a loan for effecting any improvement of such land. (2) Any transfer or partition land in contravention of sub-section (i) shall be invalid." The said section would attract a case where a tenant has purchased the land under the said provisions mentioned in the section. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that Gopal Krishan Jadhav was in actual possession of the disputed land on the Tillers day i.e. on April 1, 1957 and he became deemed purchaser of the said land on the Tillers day free of all encumbrances sub-sisting thereof under the provisions of section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that Gopal Krishan Jadhav was in actual possession of the disputed land on the Tillers day i.e. on April 1, 1957 and he became deemed purchaser of the said land on the Tillers day free of all encumbrances sub-sisting thereof under the provisions of section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy Act introduced a legal fiction that if the tenant on the land is in possession on April 1, 1957, he will be deemed to be the purchaser or the ownership of the land would stand transferred in favour of the tenant on the Tillers day, free of all encumbrances subsisting thereof on the said day. Legally it means effacement of rights of the landlord creating a right of ownership in favour of the tenant. Subsequent provisions of the Tenancy Act such as section 32-G empowers the authorities to make an inquiry after due notice to both the landlord and tenant and person interested. Under sub-section (3) of section 32-G where any tenant fails to appear or makes a statement that he is not willing to purchase the land, the Tribunal shall by an order in writing declare that such tenant is not willing to purchase the land and that the purchase is ineffective. If the purchase is declared ineffective as provided by section 32-G(3), the authority under the Act is to start the proceeding under section 32-P of the Bombay Tenancy Act and dispose of the land as provided therein. 7. The provisions of section 32-K of the Bombay Tenancy Act further provides that on the determination of the purchase price payable under section 32-H, the tenant-purchaser to deposit the said price in lump sum or such annual instalments not exceeding twelve with simple interest at the rate of 4 ½ per cent per annum on or before such dates as may be fixed by the Tribunal and if a tenant-purchaser is unable to deposit with Tribunal the entire amount of the purchase price in accordance with the order of the Tribunal, then certain concessions are provided. Section 32-K(3) provides that if a tenant-purchaser fails to pay the entire amount of the purchase price within the period fixed under the provisions of this section or is in arrears of four instalments where the number of instalments fixed is four or more, and all the instalments in any other case, the amount of the purchase price remaining unpaid and the amount of interest thereon at the rate of 4 ½ per cent per annum, if any, shall be recoverable by the Tribunal as an arrear of land revenue. 8. Lastly the provisions of section 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy Act provides that the Tribunal shall issue a certificate on deposition the purchase price in lump sum or the last instalment of such price to the tenant in respect of the land and such certificate shall be conclusive evidence of purchase. In any event, if a tenant-purchaser fails to pay the purchase price then under sub-section (3) of section 32-K of the Bombay Tenancy Act, the Tribunal may declare the purchase to be ineffective and the land shall be disposed of by the Tribunal as provided under section 32-P of the Act and the amount, if any, deposited by the tenant-purchaser towards the purchase price of the land, shall be refunded to him. 9. The scheme under the Bombay Tenancy Act to make the tenant purchaser of the land has been stated in the provisions of section 32 to 32-H. The question in this case is as to whether the tenant becomes the purchaser on the Tillers day or her becomes the purchaser when he deposits the entire purchase price of the land or when he obtains certificate under section 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy Act. 10. Mr. N.D. Hombalkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 contended that unless the entire purchase price is paid by the tenant-purchaser, he cannot be said to have become the purchaser of the land and therefore the provisions of section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act would not apply. The submission of Mr. Hombalkar cannot be accepted in view of the clear intent of section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Section 43 in terms lays down that no land purchased by a tenant under section 32 shall be transferred by sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or assignment or partitioned without the provisions sanction of the Collector. The submission of Mr. Hombalkar cannot be accepted in view of the clear intent of section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Section 43 in terms lays down that no land purchased by a tenant under section 32 shall be transferred by sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or assignment or partitioned without the provisions sanction of the Collector. If the legislature had intended to make the tenant absolute owner only on the payment of entire purchase price and obtaining certificate under section 32-M then the language of section 43 would have been quite different, the words as found in section 32-M would have been inserted. As stated above, a legal fiction has been introduced under section 32 itself that a tenant in possession of the land becomes deemed purchaser of that land with all the rights of owner of the land and further provided that the price of such land so determined under the Act to be recovered as land revenue. 11. Section 43 prohibits a transfer of such a land of which the tenant has become purchaser under section 32. The purpose and intention of the legislature as disclosed by section 32 is to transfer the ownership of the land to the tenant on the Tillers day and that he should personally cultivate the land and benefit himself by the produce from the said land, it is, therefore, a restriction has been imposed not to transfer the said land and if such land is transferred and the provisions of section 43 are contravened, then his all rights are defeated and the land is to be taken back from him and the same is to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy Act. 12. What the learned member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has held is that the tenant does not become a purchaser till he deposits the entire purchase price. That observation is obviously an error apparent on the face of record having regard to the contents of the provisions of section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The very legal fiction introduced under section 32 will be defeated if it is held that a tenant becomes purchaser on payment of the entire price and obtaining certificate thereafter under section 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy Act. 13. The very legal fiction introduced under section 32 will be defeated if it is held that a tenant becomes purchaser on payment of the entire price and obtaining certificate thereafter under section 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy Act. 13. Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act shall come into play only in a case where a tenant becomes purchaser of the land under sections 32, 32-F. It means that after April 1, 1957 i.e. on the Tillers day or on postponed date of purchase of the land under section 32-F. Where the tenant had exercised his right of purchase, as provided under section 32-F. 14. In the instant case, the deceased Gopal Krishna Jadhav became deemed purchaser on April 1, 1957 and on November 29, 1965 after the payment of only five instalments, he gifted away the land in favour of one Maruti Rama Mali and thus the land was transferred by the deemed purchaser. The said transfer was informed by the landlords themselves to the learned. Tahsildar, Kagal, who started inquiry under section 43 read with section 84-C of the Tenancy Act. It is found by the Tahsildar that the said transfer was invalid and final order was passed that the transfer of the said land was invalid and the land should be vested in the Government and the same should be disposed of by the authorities concerned to the petitioner as provided under section 84-C of the Act. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am unable to appreciate as to what purpose the order of remand was passed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It is an admitted fact that the purchase of the tenant was not declared ineffective either under section 32-G or under section 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy Act. If the purchase is not declared ineffective, the provisions of section 32-P would not be attracted and the landlord will not be a person entitled to claim restoration of possession of the land. As a matter of fact and law, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are only entitled to claim the purchase price because all the rights in respect of the land in dispute are defeated or transferred in favour of the tenant. They cannot claim any right whatsoever in respect of the land except the price thereof. As a matter of fact and law, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are only entitled to claim the purchase price because all the rights in respect of the land in dispute are defeated or transferred in favour of the tenant. They cannot claim any right whatsoever in respect of the land except the price thereof. If the entire price is not paid by the tenant and the transfer has been declared ineffective under section 43, the land vests in the Government under sub-section (3) of section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy Act and under sub-section (4) of section 84-C, the Mamlatdar shall grant the land on new and impartible tenure and on payment of occupancy price equal to the reasonable price determined under sub-section (3) of section 84-C in the prescribed manner so mentioned in the order of priority. Sub-section (3) of section 84-C also provides that the land shall be deemed to vest in the State Government, free from all encumbrances lawfully subsisting on the date of such vesting, and it shall be disposed of in the manner provided in sub-section (4) of section 84-C; the encumbrances shall be paid out of the occupancy price in the manner provided by section 32-G for the payment of encumbrances out of the purchase price of the sale of land but the right of the holder of such encumbrances to proceed against the person liable, for the enforcement of his right in any other manner, shall not be affected. Having regard to the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 84-C, it is clear that the right of these landlords are safe-guarded and they can recover their encumbrances in the manner provided by sub-section (3) of section 84-C. The landlords have only a right to recover the balance of purchase price and they could not claim any right to restoration of possession of the land because the purchase in favour of the tenant under section 32 was never made ineffective under section 32-G or section 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The view taken by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal does not appear to be consistent with the scheme of the Bombay Tenancy Act. There was no question of recovery of remaining instalments from the tenant, because he lost his all right due to illegal transfer of the land in favour of one Maruti Rama Mali. 16. Mr. The view taken by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal does not appear to be consistent with the scheme of the Bombay Tenancy Act. There was no question of recovery of remaining instalments from the tenant, because he lost his all right due to illegal transfer of the land in favour of one Maruti Rama Mali. 16. Mr. S.M. Mhamane, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the purchase price has been fixed and the petitioner has deposited the purchase price. Out of the said purchase price, the Mamlatdar is supposed to pay to the original owners respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as provided under sub-section (3) of section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The landlords cannot claim in the facts and circumstances of the case, any right except the right to recover the balance of the purchase price. Thus, the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal committed an error apparent on the face of record in remanding the matter to make fresh inquiry under sections 32-K, 32-M and section 32-P of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Therefore, the same order deserves to be quashed. 17. In the result, the order passed by the learned member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, dated March 31, 1977 in Tenancy Revision No. MRT. KP. 95/76 is set aside and that of the Tahsildar, Kagal, dated April 29, 1969 is restored. Thus the rule is made absolute with costs. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to pay the costs of the petitioner. Rule is made absolute. -----