A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. 1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Camp Kolhapur dated 18th December 1987 in Revision No.MRT-KP-62/1985.

2. 2. The land in question was originally Survey No. 107/1, and after consolidation, the same was split up into two gat numbers; namely, Gat Nos. 453 and 454. In the present proceedings, we are concerned with the Gat No. 454, situated at Village Dattawad, Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur. The land

was originally Patilki Watan lands not assigned for remuneration in Kolhapur State. It is common ground that Eksali ordinary tenancy of Patilki Watan land in the Kolhapur State was permissible. Accordingly, the Respondent was inducted as tenant in the suit land sometime in the capacity of tenant on 1st April 1957 i.e. the tillers day as per the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Tenancy Act") and even thereafter i.e. on 1st January 1963, which is the appointed date within the meaning of the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Abolition Act"). It is also not in dispute that the Respondent tenant was occupying and cultivating the suit land in the capacity of tenant also on 30th December 1965, the day on which the landlord deposited the occupancy price with the authorities within the prescribed time provided under the Abolition Act. It is on this premiss, proceedings under Section 32-G of the Tenancy Act were commenced to fix the purchase price in respect of the suit land. The Additional Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Shirol, by Judgment and Order dated 28th August 1979 has held that the Respondent tenant is deemed to have purchased the suit land after the landlord had paid the occupancy price which resulted in re-grant of the suit land by virtue of provisions of the Abolition Act. the Tahsildar accordingly fixed the purchase price to be paid by the Respondent tenant. Against this decision, the Petitioner landlord carried the matter in appeal before the Deputy Collector, Kolhapur, bearing Appeal No. 183 of 1979. The Appellate Authority has also affirmed the view taken by the Tahsildar and, therefore, dismissed the Appeal preferred by the petitioner. Against that decision, matter was taken in Revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and which came to be dismissed by the impugned Judgment and Order. these concurrent decisions are the subject matter of challenge in the present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has raised only three contentions. He submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that a formal order of re-grant under the provisions of Abolition Act in respect of the suit land has been issued in favour of the landlord; and if that is so, proceedings under Section 32-G of the Tenancy Act were premature. To buttress this plea, reliance has been placed on the decision of our High Court, reported in 2003 (3) Bom.C.R. 18 in the case of Rangnath D.Vadar v. Bhagatsing v. Kotwal Power of Attorney Girajabai Vithalsing Kotwal. It is next contended that in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the Abolition Act, even assuming that the argument of the other side as found favour with the Courts below that a formal order of re-grant was not necessary and the date on which the landlord deposited the occupancy price i.e. 30th December 1965 was sufficient compliance so as to treat there-grant having been made in favour of the landlord by operation of law under Section 5 of the Abolotion Act was to be accepted, even so, it will have to be presumed that the lease in respect of the suit land between the landlord and tenant commenced from 30th December 1965 being the date of re-grant. And in such a case, the provisions of Section 320 of the Tenancy Act were attracted and the tenant having