The Revenue Tribunal has the power to award costs of the revision application before it, but it cannot award the costs of the proceedings before the lower courts unless those orders are challenged by the aggrieved party. The Revenue Tribunal cannot award a lump sum amount as costs without specifying the break-up of the amount or the reasons for awarding such an amount.

JUDGMENT - 1. At the time of admission of this special civil application, rule was limited only to the question regarding the power of the Tribunal to award costs of the revision and further to award the costs of the lower Courts also. The petition, therefore, is heard only to this limited point. The other questions being questions of fact and already been concluded by the decision of the Tribunal, no interference was thought necessary at the stage of admission. That question on merits, therefore, is not gone into and so far as the merits of the case are concerned, this special civil application must be taken to have been dismissed.

2. The proceedings before the Revenue Courts arose on a reference made by the Civil Judge under Section 125 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 (hereinafter called for brevity. "The Tenancy Act"). The Tenancy Naib Tahsildar to whom the issue was referred by the Civil Court for determination, gave a finding that the defendant was a partner in cultivation and not a tenant and that the defendant failed to prove that he was tenant of the suit land. The defendant was Sheik Madar, the present petitioner. The Tenancy Naib-Tahsildar did not give any direction as regards the costs to be borne by the party concerned. This order of the Tenancy Naib Tahsildar was challenged in appeal before the Special Deputy Collector, who by his order dated 24-8-1970 maintained the order of the Tenancy Naib Tahsildar and dismissed the appeal. He also did not give any direction as regards the costs to be paid by one party to the other. The contending tenant Sk. Madar then filed a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and this revision application was held to be barred by time by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. On that ground itself, the revision application was liable to be dismissed and was dismissed. The Revenue Tribunal, however, still went in the merits of the case, perhaps in order to complete the judgment and not to leave any scope for remand, if any, and also held on the merits of the case that the petitioner Sk. Madar failed to prove that he was a tenant of the field. Accordingly, the Revenue Tribunal confirmed the decisions of the Tenancy Naib Tahsildar and the Special Deputy Collector. While reaching this finding the Revenue Tribunal also was of the view that the plea taken by the petitioner Sk. Madar was a false one and he had tried to support the false pleas by production of prejured testimony of himself and his witnesses. The Tribunal further observed that Sk. Madar had misused legal forum and, therefore, he was directed to pay costs of respondent in all the three Courts. The Revenue Tribunal assessed the costs in the first Court at Rs. 150/-, those in the appellate Court at Rs. 50/- and those before it at Rupees 100/-, totalling to Rs. 300/-. It further gave a direction that these costs be deposited for payment to the respondent in the first Court on or before 3-9-1972 and if the costs are not so deposited, the amounts are liable to be recovered from Sk. Madar as arrears of land revenue under Section 106 and further gave a direction that he will not be granted time to make the payment for any reason. The rule was limited to these directions regarding the costs.

3. At the hearing, Mr. R. N. Deshpande for the petitioner has raised much wider questions but it is not necessary to go in those wider questions in this petition and I will confine myself only to the limited question that arises for the purpose of deciding the question canvassed.

4. Mr. R. N. Deshpande, accepts the position that in all enquiries and proceedings commenced on the presentation of the application under Section 101 of the Tenancy Act, the Tahsildar or the Tribunal is to exercise the same powers as the Mamlatdars Court under the Mamlatdars Courts Act, 1906, and shall, save as provided in Section 36, follow the provisions of the said Act, as if the Tahsildar or the Tribunal were a Mamlatdars Court under t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document