(1.) This petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Tenancy appeal No. 198 of 1998 remanding the case back to the Sub-Divisional officer for fresh enquiry under Section 9 of the Bombay inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 (for short' the Act') - In view of the stay order granted by this Court in terms of prayer clause (c) while admitting the petition, the petitioners are in possession of the subject agricultural land about 1 H. 72 Are (4 Acres, 22 Gunthas) from Survey No. 24/27 which is convened to Gat No. 102 of Village-Ganga padali, Taluka and District-Nasik.
(2.) Admittedly, the said land was formerly an inferior Village Watan land Class vi-B and after coming into force of the Act, with effect from 26-11 -1959 the suit land was resumed by the State Govt. and inturn re-granted to the original Watandar by name baban Salve but on new tenure. The present respondents are the legal representatives of the said Watandar Shri. Baban Salve. The watandar entered into an Agreement for sale of the suit land with one Renubai the predecessor-in-title of the present Petitioners and put her in possession of the land on or about 26-11-1967 but without executing any sale deed. However, the Govt. intervened and the land came to be re-granted to the watandar by the State Govt. on or about 14- 12-1967. It appears that in spite of this re-grant. Renubai continued to be in possession of the suit land and therefore, the Watandar filed Special Civil Suit No. 8 of 1972 seeking possession of the land consequent to the order of re-grant. At the same time, Renubai filed special Civil Suit No. 92 of 1972 for specific- performance of the Agreement for sale dated 26-1-1967. Both the suits were heard together and decided separately. They were dismissed on or about 30-1-1967. Thereafter the watandar filed an application under Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act ('bombay Tenancy Act' for short) for restoration of the possession of the suit land in his favour. The Assistant Collector nasik, after conducting an enquiry directed restoration of possession vide his order dated 9-6-1977. This order came to be challenged by Renubai in Revision Application No. 239 of 1977 before the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal which was pleased to allow the said revision and it held that the provisions of section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy Act were not attracted to the suit land. The Watandar challenged the order passed by the maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in w. P. No. 2618 of 1979 before this Court. By the order dated 20-12-1983, this Court was pleased to set aside the order passed by the maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the assistant Collector/sub-Divisional Officer was directed to conduct a fresh enquiry under section 9 of the Act so as to find out whether any eviction order could be made.
(3.) On remand, the Sub-Divisional officer, Nasik dismissed the application of the Watandar by holding that the possession of Renubai was lawful and it could not be disturbed under Section 9 of the Act vide his order dated 22-7-1988. The Respondents therefore filed Tenancy Revision Application no. 198 of 1988 before the Maharashtra revenue Tribunal under Section 76 of the bombay Tenancy Act. A preliminary objection was raised by the present petitioners pointing out that the Maharashtra revenue Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the Revision Application under the Bombay Tenancy Act. However, the learned Member of the Tribunal vide his judgment and order dated 18-9-1990 was pleased to hold that the Revision Application was not maintainable. The learned Member further proceeded to set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 22-7-1988 and he remanded the matter back to the Sub-Divisional officer for fresh enquiry strictly according to the law and the directions given by this Court in W. P. No. 2618 of 1979 as well as by keeping in view the observations made by the Tribunal in its judgment.