Judgment

S.P. Kurdukar, J.-The lands bearing Survey Nos. 9/1B, 8B, 3B, 4B, and 5B situate in village Shivgaon, Taluka Khanapur, District Sangli, were owned by one Mahadeo Mohite (since deceased). These lands were Watan lands of Class IV and the said Watan was abolished under the provi­sions of Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watan Act, 1950. From 1.5.1956, the interest in these lands vested in the State Government pending the regrant. Concededly, the first respondent Dinkar Deshmukh was the tenant in lawful possession of these lands till 8.2.1959 on which date according to the Watandar Maha­deo Mohite, the tenant had voluntarily surrendered his tenancy rights in his favour. The lands were regranted to the Watandar by the State Government on payment of occupancy price on 8.8.1963. Before such regrant was made. Mahadeo Mohite, the former Watandar, had sold these lands to M/s. Hanumant Rao Deshmukh and Wamanrao Deshmukh the appellants herein, by registered sale deed dated 4.4.1959. Pursuant to this sale transaction, mutation was sought to be made in favour of the appellants to which the tenant objected claiming that he was wrongfully dispossessed by the Watandar and the purchas­ers.

2. After dispossession, the first respondent-tenant (for short tenant) filed an application on 25.9.1959 under Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short Act) for posses­sion on the ground that the appellants are in unauthorised occupation of these lands. This application was made to the Deputy Collector who after hearing the parties by his judgment and order dated 3.11.1960 dismissed the same on the ground that the same was not maintainable. The tenant’s appeal to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal also came to be dismissed on 30.6.1961. Both these authorities held that the ten­ant’s remedy was to file an application under Section 29 of the Act before the Tahsildar for restoration of possession of these lands. The tenant on 30.6.1991 filed an application under Section 29(1) of the Act for restoration of possession to which the appellants as well as the Watandar Mahadeo Mohite were joined as respondents. The appellants and Watandar raised a plea that the tenant’s application was barred by limitation since he did not file the application within two years from the date of dispossession. The tenancy Awal Karkoon (Tahsildar) by his Judgment and order dated 5.10.1966, rejected the said application of the tenant holding that it was barred by limitation. On appeal to the Deputy Collector by the tenant the same was also dismissed but, howev­er, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal vide its order dated 7.4.1972 remanded the matter to the Tahsildar to find out the actual date of dispossession and thereafter pass appropriate order. The tenant moved the High Court by way of Writ Petition which came to be dismissed on 19.9.1977.

3. On remand, the TAK Tahsildar after considering the material on record, dismissed the tenant’s application vide its order dated 28.2.1979 holding that it was barred by limitation. The tenant’s appeal was also dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 15.2.1983. Revision application filed by the tenant to the Maharashtra Tribunal was also dismissed on 24.2.1985. Against these concurrent judgments passed by the tenancy authorities, the tenant preferred a Writ Peti­tion to the High Court and the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 6.9.1990 set aside the judgments of the tenancy authorities holding that the tenant’s application was within time after giving him benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The High Court directed that the possession of these lands be restored to the tenant. Against this order passed by the High Court the appellants by special leave have filed this appeal to this Court.

4. Mr. Mohta, the learned senior counsel appearing in support of this appeal, urged that the High Court had committed a patent error while setting aside the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the tenancy auth