JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:-Writ Petition No. 799/90 arises out of the order dated 14-12-1989 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad setting aside its own order dated 24-6-1989 in Revision No. 96/B/1988/P and also setting aside the orders passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Sub-Division Selu and Deputy Collector, Selu. The land admeasuring about 23 acres 38 gunthas in Survey No. 590 situated at Parbhani belonged to one Shri Prabhakarrao Rajaram Taklikar and the petitioner entered into an agreement on 3-5-1957 with the said Prabhakarrao for cultivation of the said land admeasuring 23 acres 38 gunthas along with the well in Survey No. 590 on tenancy basis for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/-. Subsequently the said land was cultivated by the petitioner and his elder brother Raghorao @ Raghoo. Both the brothers continued to cultivate the said land jointly and in accordance with the provisions of section 38 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 they became the joint owners of the said property and certificate dated 27-3-1962 in Form No. 13 (Under Rule No. 22) came to be issued in favour of both the brothers.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that Raghoji was his elder brother and after the land was vested in favour of both the brothers jointly in terms of the order passed by Tahsildaron 25-3-1962 in pursuance of the provisions of section 38 of the Act, both the brothers became joint owners of the said land and Pahanipatrak as well as 7/12 extract pertaining to the said land issued by the revenue authorities from time to time showed both the brothers as joint owners of the property. However, some time in the year 1975-76 Raghoji manipulated the record and showed his personal share as 15 acres 38 gunthas and that of the petitioner as 7 acres 38 gunthas. The petitioner is not very sure when this alleged manipulation of record came to his knowledge. The petitioner therefore, approached the Additional Tahsildar, Sub-Division, Selu and filed an application/petition for correction of the mutation entry-pertaining to the land in S. No. 590 and prayed that the land should be shown as equally distributed between both brothers namely each one should be shown as the owner of 11 acres 38 gunthas. This application appears to have been filed some time in July 1986 and after hearing both the parties the Additional Tahsildar by an order dated 7-10-1986 allowed the application and directed the mutation entries to be corrected. In the meanwhile, Raghoji before this application was filed, had expired and the application was filed against his son namely Rama. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar on 7-10-1986 Rama approached the Deputy Collector by an appeal under section 90 of the Act. The said appeal was partly allowed by the Deputy Collector and the matter was remanded back for fresh enquiry by the Additional Tahsildar as it was observed that sufficient opportunity was not given to Rama.

3. As directed by the Deputy Collector, the Additional Tahsildar conducted a fresh enquiry and by an order dated 8-9-1987 allowed the original application of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this fresh order Rama filed another appeal before the Deputy Collector, Selu and by order dated 13-10-1988 the appeal was rejected. The said order of the Deputy Collector came to be challenged before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Revision No. 96/B/1988/Parbhani and the same was rejected by order dated 26-4-1989 on the ground that revision application was not maintainable against the orders impugned. This order dated 26-4-1989 seems to have been passed without hearing the learned advocate of the appellant.

4. Rama therefore, filed application for restoration of his revision application and the same came to be allowed by order dated 9-11-1989 by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. However, while restoring the revision application to his file the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, instead of maintai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document