RAGHUNATH NARAYAN BOKIL Vs. VITHAL SAWALA LIMBHORI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question referred to the larger Bench is: whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has jurisdiction to review its own order passed in the revision application under section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948

(2.) While making reference, the Single Judge noticed the judgment in the case of Anoopchand Nathmal Baid v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur and others, 1986 Mh.L.J., 520 wherein while considering the question whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') has the power under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidharbha Region) Act, 1958 to review its own decision, the Single Judge held that under section 315(1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short, 'MLR Code'), the Tribunal could exercise its jurisdiction only in cases arising under the provisions of the enactment specified in Schedule 'J' of the MLR Code and since the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidharbh Region) Act, 1958 is not referred to in the schedule, the powers which the Tribunal could exercise were only those conferred by the Tenancy Act and, thus, the power of review could not be exercised by the Tribunal in the cases arising under the Tenancy Act. In the reference order, another judgment of the Single Judge of this court in the case of Genu Laxman Shinde v. Chandrakant Dagadu Kotulkar, 1999(1) Mh.L.J., 235 has been noticed wherein it was held that the Tribunal possesses power to review its order passed under section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Having noticed the inconsistency in the aforesaid two judgments, the Single Judge thought fit to have the said controversy resolved by the larger Bench. This is how the matter has been placed before us.

(3.) It is not necessary to refer to the facts of the case in details. Suffice, however, to say that with regard to the tenancy rights in respect of Gat No.416, admeasuring 3 Hectares 90 Ares at village Hirave, Taluka Purandar, District Pune, the dispute ultimately reached the Tribunal in the revision application under section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Tenancy Act'). The Tribunal dismissed the said revision application on 16.10.1982. The present respondents filed review application before the Tribunal seeking review of the order dated 16.10.1982 which was allowed on 16.11.1987. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred writ petition raising the ground that the review application made by the respondents before the Tribunal was not maintainable and hence, the order allowing the review application was bad-in-law.