JUDGMENT -A.P. SHAH, J.:---Rule. Respondent waives service. By consent petition is placed for final hearing.

2.This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal reviewing its earlier order passed in revision and remanding the matter to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Maval, for de novo enquiry under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

3. The facts briefly are that the petitioners are owners of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 35/A-3 and 57/1-B admeasuring 5 acres 35 gunthas and 35 gunthas respectively situated at village Khadakale, Tahsil Haveli, District Pune. It is an admitted position that the name of deceased Dagadu Kotulkar, i.e., father of the respondent was shown as tenant prior to 1st April, 1957 in 7/12 extract. An enquiry was held under section 32-G of the Act and in the said enquiry, the sale was declared in-effective as the tenant failed to remain present before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, ('A.L.T. ' for short). Thereafter an enquiry was held under section 32-P wherein possession of deceased landlord, i.e., Genu Laxman Shinde was confirmed vide order dated 6th December, 1964. A mutation entry to that effect was duly made in the village record. Nearly 24 years after the orders were passed under section 32-G and 32-P, the respondent as constituted attorney of deceased Dagadu Kotulkar filed Appeal No. 64 of 1987 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Haveli, challenging the orders passed by the A.L.T. under section 32-G and 32-P of the Act. By order dated 30th March, 1991, the appeal was allowed by the S.D.O. and the order of the A.L.T. was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the A.L.T. for fresh enquiry. A revision application was carried before the Maharashtra Revenu Tribunal, Pune, by the petitioners which came to be allowed by the Revenu Tribunal by judgment, and order dated 26th December, 1995 whereby the Revenu Tribunal set aside the order passed by the S.D.O. and restored the order of the A.L.T. The Revenue Tribunal held inter alia that the appeal filed before the S.D.O. was without authority; that the appeal stood abated on account of the death of original applicant, Dagadu Kotulkar and lastly that the appeal of the respondent was hopelessly barred by limitation. On 15th July, 1991, the respondent filed application for review before the Revenu Tribunal which came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 10th October, 1997.

4.The first point argued on behalf of the petitioner by Shri Anturkar is that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal did not have power under the Tenancy Act to review it own decision. Section 76 of the Act invests the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal with powers of revision and limits the exercise of that power only to the three grounds, namely, that the order of the Collector was contrary to law; that the Collector has failed to determine some material issue of law; or that there was a substantial defect in following the procedure provided by the Act, which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (2) provides that in deciding applications under this section, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal shall follow the provisions which may be prescribed by the rules made under this Act after consultation with the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Thus, according to Mr. Anturkar, it is clear that the Bombay Tenancy Act which creates new rights, prescribes a new procedure and creates special forums does not invest the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal with the power of review. Therefore, according to Mr. Anturkar the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal is wholly without jurisdiction. In support of his submission, Mr. Anturkar placed reliance on the decision of M.S. Deshpande, J., in (Anoopchand Nathmal Baid v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal)1, 1986(3) Bom.C.R. 157 Shri Apte, learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand referred to the provisions of section 322 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 which permit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document