VENUBAI DAGADU BOTHE Vs. PANDHARINATH PUNJA KATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay, dated April 6, 1990 in Tenancy Case No.6/1989. The short question involved in this writ petition is whether the M.R.T. had jurisdiction to entertain a review application filed by Respondent No.1 against the decision dated 14th August 1989 passed by the same Tribunal in Tenancy Appeal No.155 of 1988. The question, as is rightly contended on behalf of the Petitioners, is squarely covered by the decision of our High Court reported in Anoopchand Nathmal Baid v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur and others, 1986 Mh.L.J. 520. Indeed, in the said case, this Court considered the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, to hold that the Revenue Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the order passed by it, after examining all the relevant provisions of the Tenancy Act as well as the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The said enactment is analogous and contains pari materia provisions in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. In other words, even under the provisions of the present Act, the principle enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid decision will squarely apply.

(2.) COUNSEL for the Petitioner had also relied on another decision of our High Court reported in 2002(1) Mh.L.J. 119 in the case of Dagadu Sakharam Patil since deceased through his L.Rs. Bhikkan Dagadu Patil and others v. State of Maharashtra and others. The said decision deals with the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1975. Although the said decision is not directly on the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, but the principle underlying the said decision will also have application for considering the question that arises in the present case. As mentioned earlier, there is direct decision of our High Court in the case of Anoopchand (supra), which has taken the view that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review order passed by it. Applying the said principle, the decision of the Tribunal, which is impugned in this petition will have to be set aside as being without jurisdiction. It is not necessary for me to go into any other contention. Petition accordingly succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated April 6, 1990 is set aside as being without jurisdiction. No order as to costs.