of the Act, the tillers’ day stood postponed. This argument clearly overlooks the settled position that section 32F of the Act is not a provision of disabling the landlord to resume the land. Whereas, it is only a provision entitling or empowering the tenant to purchase the land at a future date. The fact remains that the date on which the subject application was filed, the holding of the tenant has been established to be in excess of ceiling area and that finding has not been disturbed either by the Tribunal nor has been questioned before this Court at the instance of the respondents. Counsel for the respondents fairly submits that, that finding reached by the two authorities below cannot be taken exception to, but he has supported the reason recorded by the Tribunal that the application as filed, was premature for the reasons already recorded hereinbefore. However, there is no express provision in the Act, which would disentitle the Tribunal to invoke remedy under section 32P of the Act inspite of the finding reached that the tenant was holding land in excess of the ceiling area and was therefore, not eligible to purchase the same by virtue of section 32A of the Act.”
