RAMCHANDRA SADASHIV HARDAS Vs. MADHUKAR MARUTI JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI V.S.Paradkar for the petitioner. Shri V.G. Peshve for the respondents No.1 and 2. Both of them have been heard at length.

(2.) THE petitioner is taking exception to the judgment and order passed by the Member of M.R.T., in review application filed on 29/9/1987 against the order dated 23/7/1987 by the designated Member of M.R.T.Pune passed in Revision Application No.MRTNS-XII- 8/85 (TEN/B -598/85), bearing No.MRT- NS/IX/11/87 (Review) (TENC/11/87): Pune, dated 4/1/1988 by which the learned Member reviewed his previous order mentioned above. Shri Paradkar vehemently submitted that the power of review of M.R.T. is to be consistent with the provisions of section 322 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 ( hereinafter referred to as Bombay Tenancy Act, for convenience). He submitted that the learned Member of Tribunal has committed gross error of law in reviewing his previous order though the material on which he passed his present order was available on record. He submitted that there was no new material which was available for consideration to the learned Member for passing the present order and therefore, he should not have reviewed his previous order and should not have fallen in the error of law.

(3.) RETALIATING this Shri Paradkar submitted that even then, this fact was mentioned in the written statement which was filed by the respondents when previous revision application was considered, dealt with, and decided by the learned Member. Shri Paradkar submitted that, the Member should have considered the ratio of the the judgment of Single Bench of this Court in the matter of Dr. Dilip D. Shah Vs. M.W. Pradhan and others, reported in 1989 Mah. R.C.J.417. He submitted that the learned member should have given due importance to the observations made by the single Bench of this Court in paragraph No.12 of the said judgment.