JUDGMENT - R.G. DESHPANDE, J. :---The present proceedings relate to the right of declaration of respondent No. 1 as an owner of Field Survey No. 1 admeasuring 15 acres 31 gunthas, situated at village Gour, Tq. Kallam District Osmanabad, under section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. In fact, the present writ petition was once heard and decided by this Court by its judgment dated 3rd August, 1990. However, because of the Review Application which was granted by this Court and which was filed at the instance of respondent Nos. 3 to 5, the matter is reheard and is to be decided as per the order granting review passed earlier by this Court. Before proceeding with the merit of the present matter, it would be necessary to refer to certain developments occurred during the pendency of the present writ petition and that also would necessitate first to decided the Review Application No. 2941/90 which was filed at the instance of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 on 28th October, 1993. By this application, the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 prayed for review of the judgment dated 3rd August, 1990 passed by this Court, on the ground that since the name of the respondents did not appear on the Cause List on the date of hearing, the learned Counsel for the respondents could not remain present and hence he was not heard before deciding the matter on merits by this Court. Considering the request made by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 as genuine, this Court by its order dated 25-3-1994 granted the Review Application and, thus, the matter is taken up for hearing again. 2.During the pendency of the above-said matter for hearing after grant of Review Application, the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 did file an application for transposing them as petitioners in the present writ petition vide Civil Application No. 3139/96 alleging that since they are the purchasers of the field in question in pursuance of the sale-deed dated 24th May, 1988, they have a subsisting right and title to contest the present litigation and the cause of action survive for them and hence they be permitted to transpose themselves as petitioners. This application for transposition is replied and opposed to by the respondent No. 1 - Sopan and the matter was heard on this point as also on merits of the case. This application for transposition is replied and opposed to by the respondent No. 1 - Sopan and the matter was heard on this point as also on merits of the case. Hence before deciding the matter on merits, I will decide the Application for transposition first. 3.Shri N.H. Patil, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 has contended that since his clients are the purchasers of the field in question, his clients (the respondent Nos. 3 to 5) have virtually stepped into the shoes of the present petitioner, who is the vendor. According to Shri Patil, the decision, if any, in the present matter would be affecting his clients i.e. the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and they will be the sufferers. An important aspect to be noted in the instant matter is that the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are joined as party respondents in the present writ petition at the instance of Sopan, who filed an application before this Court for bringing to the notice of the Court the fact that the petitioner had already sold the disputed property to respondent Nos. 3 to 5. The said application was granted and, accordingly, the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were joined as party-respondents in this writ petition. Since the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are the party-respondents before the Court and if they would have remained present on the date of hearing on the earlier date of decision, they would have definitely been allowed a chance of hearing and there was no question of their transposition as petitioners on that date as no application to that effect was filed anytime before the decision on 3rd August, 1990. Even otherwise since they were the party-respondents, they had every right of being heard as regards their case which they could have put before this Court and could have supported the petitioner at that time. However though for justifiable reason a review is granted by this Court, that does not entitle the present respondent Nos. 3 to 5 now to get themselves transposed in place of the petitioner whose petition, in fact, was heard and decided. However that order is not now to be considered since the review is granted in the present matter. 4.Merely because, according to the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 now to get themselves transposed in place of the petitioner whose petition, in fact, was heard and decided. However that order is not now to be considered since the review is granted in the present matter. 4.Merely because, according to the respondent Nos. 3 to 5, a right is subsisting in them to continue the proceedings, does not mean that they can get themselves transposed as petitioners. At the most, they have a right of being heard before this Court and which is, in fact, been granted in view of grant of their Review Application. 5.The present application, for transposition made by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 is, therefore, rejected. However, they are heard again as party-respondents to this proceeding and the matter is being decided after hearing all the parties on merits. Hence before giving the judgment on merit of this case, I have to say that Civil Application No. 3139/1996 is rejected. 6.As regards the judgment on the merit of the present case, as observed in initial paragraph of this judgment, the matter relates to declaration of ownership rights under section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in respect of Field Survey No. 1 with an area of 15 acres 31 gunthas, situated at village Gour, Tq. Kallam District Osmanabad of which, the original owner was one Smt. Rani Krishnabai w/o Shankarrao Deshmukh who, during the pendency of the proceedings expired and her legal representative - Vijaysingh s/o Shankarrao Deshmukh is already brought on record as petitioner. In nutshell, the facts are that the present respondent No. 1 Sopan claimed himself to be a protected tenant over the suit land and was also in possession of the same as a tenant thereon on the relevant date to which a necessary reference will be made in subsequent paras of this judgment. On 29th November, 1977, the respondent No. 1 -Sopan Aba Mali filed an application under section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (which is hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the purposes of brevity). This application filed by the respondent-tenant was registered as Case No. 1977. TNC. 38E(1) on the file of Tahsildar, Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. Before the Tahsildar, it was the case of the respondent-tenant that he was a protected tenant over the suit land and that he was in possession thereof. This application filed by the respondent-tenant was registered as Case No. 1977. TNC. 38E(1) on the file of Tahsildar, Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. Before the Tahsildar, it was the case of the respondent-tenant that he was a protected tenant over the suit land and that he was in possession thereof. He further stated that the land holder Smt. Rani Krishnabai (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner" all through this judgment) was the owner of huge landed property to the extent of about 500 acres. It was also the case of the respondent-tenant that he had only a holding of 8 acres on 1st of February, 1957 which is a material date in the present matter as it happened to be a date of notification under section 38 of the Act. The respondent-tenant, therefore, claimed that he was entitled to get the said land in question declared in his name and further that he was not, even in that case, to exceed the ceiling limit of one family holding as prescribed under the relevant provisions. In short, he claimed to be declared as an owner of the land in question under section 38-E of the Act. The above-said case of the respondent was contested by the original owner - Smt. Rani Krishnabai by filing her say, wherein it was contended on her behalf that she did not hold landed property to the extent of 500 acres on 1-2-1957 and hence, according to her, the suit land could not be declared under section 38-E of the Act in the name of respondent No. 1- Sopan. It was also denied on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent No. 1- Sopan was a tenant on the field in question, much the less, a protected tenant and, therefore, according to the petitioner, the question of declaration under section 38-E in favour of respondent No. 1 Sopan did not arise. A point as regards limitation of the application at the instance of Sopan was also raised along with the plea that Sopan was not a tenant but a servant on the field in question. In short, the claim made by Sopan was tried to be denied in every respect at the instance of the petitioner. On the basis of these pleadings, the parties were allowed to adduce necessary evidence on record along with documents which they thought fit. In short, the claim made by Sopan was tried to be denied in every respect at the instance of the petitioner. On the basis of these pleadings, the parties were allowed to adduce necessary evidence on record along with documents which they thought fit. The Tahsildar, Kallam who dealt with the matter, framed the issues to the following effect:- (i) Whether was it proved by the plaintiff (present respondent No. 1) that he was a protected tenant over the suit land ? (ii) Whether was he entitled to get him declared as an owner under section 38-E of the Act ? In support of his contentions, the respondent-tenant did file very many documents which also included the material documents, such as, Lawani Patrak, Shelgaon Jagir Dahiphal, Wagholi, Babhalgaon, Wadgaon Jagir, Wagholi for the year 1957-58. In support of her contention, the petitioner did file a copy of mutation entry No. 165/2 dated 18-8-1973, the copy of the application filed by Sopan dated 23rd June, 1958, copy of the order passed on that application on 23-6-1958 as also the copy of information prepared under section 37-A, 38-E and 38-C. The other documents which were filed on record were the copy of 7/12 extract of Survey No. 1 for the years from 1969-70 to 76-77 as also 7/12 extract of the same field for the year 1977-78 and 1978-79. The learned Tahsildar, after giving due chance of being heard to the parties concerned, reached to the conclusion by his judgment and order dated 11-8-1980 that the respondent-tenant Sopan was entitled for being declared as an owner under section 38-E of the Act, with regard to the field in question including acres given for school building situated at village Gour. 7.Being dissatisfied with the above-said judgment and order, the petitioner did approach by way of an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Osmanabad vide Tenancy Appeal No. 83/80. The learned Appellate Authority, after hearing the matter and after giving due consideration to the arguments before him by his judgment and order dated 30th June, 1982, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and the order passed by the Tahsildar, Kallam, is maintained. 8.Revision Application No. 145/B/1982/0 was filed before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad at the instance of the petitioner, challenging the orders passed by the revenue authorities below. 8.Revision Application No. 145/B/1982/0 was filed before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad at the instance of the petitioner, challenging the orders passed by the revenue authorities below. The learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad who dealt with the matter, by his judgment and order dated 10th October, 1983 dismissed the Revision Application filed by the petitioner, upholding the orders passed by the authorities below. It is this order of Revenue Tribunal which is under challenge before this Court in the instant writ petition. 9.Very many grounds were raised on behalf of the petitioner assailing the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Since the matter was being heard after grant of review, no doubt, a chance of being heard in details was also given to the petitioner by this Court along with a chance of being heard to the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. No doubt, same opportunity was also given to the respondent No. 1- Sopan, the tenant. Shri Bhadekar, learned Advocate for the petitioner tried to assail the order on the grounds that Sopan was not a protected tenant, that the evidence was not properly appreciated by the authorities below, further that as per the provisions of section 5 read with section 8 of the Act, the respondent No. 1 failed to establish his case as a tenant and that Sopan, in fact, was a servant and not a tenant. Shri N.H. Patil, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 was also heard as it is at his instance, the matter is being heard again who has sought the review of the earlier judgment of this Court. Shri Patil has frankly and sportively admitted that he has to stand or fall along with the petitioner as, according to him, the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 had purchased the land from the petitioner and that too during the pendency of the present proceedings. After giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by all the parties, I find that the Revenue authorities have concurrently held that respondent No. 1- Sopan was entitled for declaration under section 38-E as had sought for by him, he being a protected tenant and that he proved the same in all respects. No illegality in any manner is pointed out either by the petitioner or by the respondent Nos. No illegality in any manner is pointed out either by the petitioner or by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in appreciating the evidence and its dissection by the Revenue authorities below nor is any jurisdictional error pointed out in the matter, on the part of the Revenue authorities below. After having gone through the relevant provisions, I do find that there is no justifiable reason to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact held by all the three Revenue authorities below and particularly when even according to this Court, the petitioner once having sold the land, in fact, the present petitioner has no valid and subsisting title to the property in dispute. If at all something could be said, it is for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 who are transferees. However, the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 being the transferees, do not have better title, right and interest than what was there in the petitioner who happened to be the vendor of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. When no better case could be pleaded by the petitioner, the question of having a better standing for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 does not arise. Unfortunately, the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have not initiated any independent proceeding, challenging the right, title and interest of the present respondent No. 1- Sopan, who is represented through his legal representative - Goroba. 10.In the result, writ petition fails. Rule is discharged. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.