The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal did not have the power to review its own decision, it could not have reviewed its order suo motu and there was no error apparent on the face of the record which could have justified the review of the decision rendered.

JUDGMENT - M.S. DESHPANDE, J.:---This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal reviewing its earlier order passed in revision and holding that the petitioner was in possession of the suit lands for the first time in 1971-72 and not in 1970-71 as per its finding recorded while deciding the revision application.

2. The petitioner filed an application under section 50 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act ('Vidarbha Tenancy Act', for short) before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal claiming that he was in possession of Survey Nos. 81, 83 96/3 and 98/1, total area 58.33 acres of Belghat from the land-holder Champabai and continued to be tenant until 1974-75. He gave a statutory notice to the landholder making an offer to purchase the land on 1-11-1974. As no sale-deed was executed by the landholder, the petitioner filed an application to the Additional Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal for the purchase of the land and fixation of price. That application was not opposed by the landholder, but the Additional Tahsildar found that the petitioner was tenant only from the year 1971-72 and that since the offer to purchase the land had not been made within one year, the ownership in the land could not be claimed under section 50 of the Act. This order was challenged before the Sub-Divisional Officer in appeal and the appeal also came to be dismissed. The revision application was filed before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by the petitioner and it made the following observations :

"From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the applicant became the tenant, for the first time in 1970-71 and as such, the right of purchase would be governed by section 50 of the Tenancy Act. Provisions of section 50 of the Tenancy Act are absolutely clear on the point that the tenant is required to give an offer of purchase within one year of the commencement of tenancy. In the instant case, the notice is admittedly given on 1-11-1974 and it is clearly beyond the prescribed limitation of one year. The applicant has thus lost his only remedy to purchase the land under the provisions of the Tenancy Act."

3. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal further observed that it was clear that the right of ownership cannot be transferred to the tenant during the life time of the widow and rejected the application. The State of Maharashtra then filed an application for review of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's order because of the observation that the petitioner became tenant of the land for the first time in 1970-71. The grievance of the state Government was that the above finding of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was relied upon by the non-applicants Anoopchand and Abhyakumar in Ceiling appeal Nos. 153/80 and 154/80 in support of their contention that the suit fields were held by Anoopchand from the tenure holder Champabai prior to 26-9-1970 and are not liable to be calculated in the holdings of Abhyakumar, who is the heir of Champabai. It was contented that both the ceiling appeals were dismissed on account of the finding that the crop statements for the year 1970-71 evidencing the possession of Anoopchand prior to 26-9-1970 were manipulated and consequently the transfer of the suit fields by Champabai in favour of Anoopchand was hit by section 10 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, as amended. It was urged that the original crop statements for the year 1970-71 were manipulated and this being a new fact, discovered later, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's observations in the order dated 16th October, 1980, in Tenancy Revision No. 76 of 1980 to the effect that Anoopchand was a tenant of the fields in 1970-71, called for a review. The application was opposed by the petitioner firstly on the ground of delay and secondly because it could not be urged by the State Government, which had in its possession all the documents, that a new fact

Click Here to Read the rest of this document