JAIRAJ KANTILAL SONAWALA Vs. THE MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. These 128 writ petitions although by different petitioners, they impugn the same orders of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and, therefore, they were taken up together. There are common arguments canvassed. There is a common grievance of each of the petitioner, namely, that the Tribunal should not have remanded the case after it finds that the petitioners/original applicants have satisfied it that none of the orders impugned before the Tribunal can be sustained in law. In these circumstances, these writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order. They were heard finally. By consent of the parties they are being disposed of.

(2.) MR . Samdani, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, has referred to the list of dates and events in Writ Petition No. 2539 of 2012. He submits that the controversy is common but for convenience, some of the facts in this writ petition be noted.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioners that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to this writ petition are legal heirs of Ramesh Balkrishna Lase who was the original applicant. He had filed an application on 21st March, 1983 invoking Section of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the B.T.A.L. Act), claiming a declaration that he was the tenant of the petitioners in respect of the land Survey No. 78(p). It was alleged by him that he was cultivating this agricultural land.