BHASHKAR KANU SARANG Vs. SHANKA TUKARAM BANDHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER examining the order under challenge and considering the submissions of Shri Kamble on behalf of the petitioners, 1 am disposing of these two petitions by a common judgment.

(2.) THE petitioners are the original applicants and the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, bombay dated 22-2-1984 disposing of two revision applications filed by the respondent Shri Shankar Tukaram Bandhakar. While hearing these petitions, 1 was taken through the order passed by thetahasildar, Devgad dated 12-3-1991 intnc/sr/1/81 and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kankaoli Sub-Division, Kankaoli dated 8-8-1982 in Tenancy Appeal Nos. 83/82 and 84/82.

(3.) ON going through the order of the Revenue Tribunal passed in the revision applications filed by the respondents, the Revenue Tribunal has allowed the said revision application and set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 8-8-1982 and the order passed by the Tahasildar, Devgad dated 12-3-1981 and the cases were remanded to Tahasildar, Devgad for holding necessary inquiry afresh and decide the matter in accordance with law. As per the order passed by the Sub-Divisional officer, Kankavali dated 8-8-1982 and the order passed by the tahasildar, Devgad dated 12-3-1981, the petitioner Shri Bhaskar Kami Sarang was declared tenant in respect of both the suit lands and as per the order passed by the Tribunal. While setting aside the said orders, the Tahasildar was directed to hold fresh inquiry in respect of the tenancy. These petitions are pending since 1995 and while issuing rule, interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d) was granted in both the petitions and the said relief is in force till today. By granting interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (d), the order passed by the tribunal remanding the case for inquiry afresh is stayed and the petition against respondent No. 2 was disposed of as back as on 8-10-1987 and respondent No. 1 represented through a lawyer has remained absent during the hearing of this writ petition and respondent No, 3 is duly served.