JUDGMENT - (1) This is an application made under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India by three petitioners wherein the petitioners have prayed for the setting aside of the order made by the Government of Bombay on 5-2-1958. By the said order, the Government reversed the order of the Prant Officer dated 24-4-1953. By his order dated 24-4-1953 the Prant Officer held that the application made by the present opponent No. 1 of 4-11-1947 for the restoration to him of the land from which he was ejected was barred by limitation and he ordered that the said application do stand dismissed. By an order dated 5-2-1958 made by the Government of Bombay, ;the Government allowed the aforesaid application of opponent No. 1 and directed that the said application of opponent No. 1 and directed that the possession of the lands which are the subject matter of the present application be restored to him. It is from this order of Government dated 5-2-1958 that the present application under Art. 227 of the Constitution has been made by the petitioners.

(2) This application raises a point under S. 28 of the Bombay Tenancy Act of 1939 and the point is whether under section 28 Government has power to revise an order made by the Mamlatdar under S. 24(2), or by the Collector in appeal under Section 24(3), of the Act. This point arises upon the following facts and circumstances :

(3) It would appear that the opponent No. 1 Bhavsar Vrajlal Jechand was evicted from the lands comprising 22 survey Nos. of village Vataman by the opponent No. 3 Thakorsahed of Sanand on 20-5-1944. The Bombay Tenancy Act of 1939 was applied to the area on 11-4-1946. Under sub-section (2) of S. 4 of the said Act, the opponent No. 1 gave two notices to the opponent No. 3 contending that he (opponent No. 1) was wrongfully evicted from the above-mentioned land and that therefore possession of these landscapes, the opponent No. 1 on 4-11-1947, made an application under S. 24 of the Tenancy Act of 1939 to the Mamlatdar for restoration of possession of the 22 survey numbers to him. By an order made on 22-9-1952 the Mamlatdar held that the opponent No. 1 had been wrongfully evicted from 10 out of the 22 survey numbers. It may be noted that amongst those we are concerned in this application were not included. In other words, the opponent No. 1s application for restoration of possession of the lands with which we are concerned in this application was rejected by the Mamlatdar by his order dated 22-9-1952. It may be necessary to note what are the survey numbers with which we are concerned in this application. The first petitioners grievance is inrespect of S. No. 333 of village Vataman. The second petitioners grievance is in respect of S. No. 217/1 of the same village and the third petitioners complaint is in the matter of S. No. 335 of the same village. It is the petitioners case that these lands were had by them under the various mortgages which were effected in their favour by the opponent No. 1 feeling aggrieved by the order made by the Mamlatdar on 22-9-1952 went in appeal against it to the Prant Officer. The opponent No. 3 Thakorsahed of Sanand, also appealed from the said order of the Mamlatdar, since the Mamlatdar had decided against him inrespet of 10 survey numbers out of 22 survey numbers. By an order made by him on 24-4-1953, the Prant Officer held that the opponent No. 1s application dated 4-11-1947 for restoration to him of the lands from which he was ejected by the opponent No. 3 was time-barred and he accordingly dismissed the appeal of opponent No. 1. While dismissing the appeal of opponent No. 1 by the Mamlatdar, was reversed From the aforesaid order of the Prant Officer allowed the appeal of opponent No. 3. The effect of the Prant Officer allowed the appeal order, therefore, was that the order of restoration of 10 survey numbers, which was made n favour of opponent No. 1 by the Mamlatdar, was reversed. From the aforesaid order of the Prant Officer, opponent No. 1 made an app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document