(1.) THE short facts of the case are that the original petitioner Shanaji Punjaji claimed the benefit of the provisions of Section 32FF of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, for which the proceedings were initiated. There were earlier litigation and ultimately the matter was remanded and thereafter, it appears that the Mamlatdar and ALT passed the order dated 12.4.1988, whereby the petitioner was declared as deemed purchaser and the price of the land was also fixed. It appears that the matter was carried in appeal before the Dy. Collector (Land Reforms) being Tenancy Appeal No.181 of 1988. The said appeal came to be partly allowed and the matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar as per the order dated 25th October, 1988. The petitioner carried the matter before the Tribunal in revision, which ultimately has been partly allowed by the Tribunal as per the decision dated 28.11.1995 and the matter was further remanded to the Mamlatdar for reconsideration. It is under these circumstances, the present petition.
(2.) I have heard Mr.A.J.Patel, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.J.M.Patel, learned Counsel for the respondent.
(3.) UPON hearing the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides and the perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that up to paragraph No.3, the Tribunal has recorded the submissions made by both the sides and the reasonings are recorded by the Tribunal at paragraph 4, in which it is only stated that the revision deserves to be partly allowed and in view of the principles of res judicata, the operative portion of the order is passed.