JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

2.The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 29-6-1982 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Review Applications No. 5/1982 and 6/1982 thereby reviewing the judgment and order dated 29-9-1980 of the Tribunal in appeal registered as Revenue Tribunal No. 34/1979. By the impugned judgment and order the Tribunal while reviewing its earlier judgment and order dated 29-9-80 has remanded the matter to the Tahsildar, Shahada for holding fresh inquiry and to pass decision on merits in accordance with law on the dispute between the parties. The dispute relates to claim for restoration of land in accordance with the provisions of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter called as the said Act).

3.The learned Advocate for the petitioners has conceded that the petitioners do not press for the relief in terms of prayer Clause (a) of the petition. The relief in that regard, therefore, stands rejected, as not pressed for.

4.Few facts, relevant for the decision, are that the respondent No. 2 had filed an application under the said Act for restoration of suit lands comprising of Survey No. 106 and 110 situated in the village Chikhali (Bk). It was the case of the respondent No. 2 that the suit lands were allotted to his share by virtue of partition. The petitioners were tenants prior to the partition and in terms of provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as the Tenancy Act), the land was transferred to the petitioners predecessors. The respondent No. 2, therefore, in terms of the said Act, had filed said application to the Tahsildar of Shahada for restoration. The Additional Tahsildar who inquired into the matter, held that the respondent No. 2 being Mohammedan, is not a tribal within the meaning of the said expression under the said Act and, therefore, the facts disclosed in the matter did not affect the transfer of the land as it was not a case of transfer by a tribal in favour of a non tribal. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tahsildar passed on 26-5-1978, the respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under section 6 of the said Act which came to be registered as Revenue Tribunal 34 of 1979. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 29th September, 1980 refused to interfere in the order of the Additional Tahsildar and dismissed the said appeal by the said order. Thereafter, an Officer on Special Duty in Konkan Division, at Secretariat in Bombay by his letter dated 24-10-1991 addressed to the Registrar of Tribunal sought to bring certain facts to the notice of the Tribunal and the said letter was registered by the Tribunal as suo motu review petition and the same was allowed by the impugned order.

5.The impugned judgment and order is sought to be assailed firstly on the ground that the Tribunal had no powers to review its order under the said Act and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order is without jurisdiction. Drawing attention to sections 6 and 9 of the said Act, and placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matters of (Patel Narshi Thakershi and others v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji)1, reported in A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1273 and (Annopchand Nathmal Baid v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur)2, reported in 1986(3) Bom.C.R. 157 it was submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the provisions contained in the said Act no where provide for review powers to the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal could not have exercised such powers to interfere in its own decision disposing of the appeal finally. Referring to sections 322 and 315 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code), it was submitted that the provisions therein regarding review powers do not extend to the Tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction in relation to t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document