A.B. Naik, J.

1. 1. Civil Application No. 2433/2004 is filed by the petitioners seeking permission of this Court to sell five acres of land out of Survey No. 120 (Gut No. 144), admeasuring 22A 18G. The application being wholly misconceived cannot be entertained. Hence rejected.

2. 2. Civil Application No. 2600/2003 is filed by the respondents in the Writ Petition seeking an injunction against the petitioners from alienating the property in dispute. As I have rejected the application filed by the petitioners seeking permission to sell the property, the interim order granted by this Court on this Civil Application on 4th April, 2002, to continue till the final disposal of the matter by the Tahsildar to whom the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has remanded the matter for disposal, in accordance with law.

.3. This Petition can be disposed of finally as rule has been

.granted by me on 3-2-2003 and all contesting parties are represented by their Advocates. In this Writ Petition, the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") in Review Petition No. 6/C/1999A and Case No. 23B/94/A is challenged. While admitting the petition, I placed reliance on the judgment of the learned single Judge in the case of Anoopchand Nathmal Baid vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur reported in 1986 Mh.LJ. page 520, wherein the learned single Judge of this Court (Coram M. S. Dehspande, J.: as then he was) while considering the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Vidarbha Region) section 111 and provisions of section 322 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, has held that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review its order and hence I granted interim relief staying further proceedings, as per the remand order passed by the Tribunal allowing the Review Petition. After admission of this petition,1 the respondent filed a reply and contested the proceedings. I heard the Writ Petition at length. Though the petition is not on Board, it is taken on Board by the consent of the Advocates and is being disposed of finally.

.4. Few facts to be noted to understand the controversy. One Mehtabkhan Hayatkhan Pathan claiming to be a tenant of land Survey No. 102 situated at Satara Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad, approached the Additional Tahsildar, Aurangabad, with a request to declare him as a protected tenant under the provisions of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act"). The respondent Sherkhan Fatehkhan was the owner of the land and respondent No. 2 is his son and respondent No. 3 is his grand-son. On receipt of the notice from the Tahsildar, the respondents filed their written statement. The learned Tahsildar, by a cryptic order, rejected the said application. While rejecting the said application, the learned Tahsildar

.proceeded on the footing that the tenant was not in possession of the land since 1951 and the application should have been filed within two years from the date of dispossession as per the provisions of section 32 (1) of the Act. As tenant was not in possession of the land from 1951, the question of granting declaration does not arise and, hence application came to be rejected by the order dated 10th June, 1991.

3. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10th June, 1991 passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Aurangabad, the tenant, filed appeal to the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) Aurangabad who by his order dated 20th April, 1992 rejected the appeal in limine.

4. 6. Against the said order, the tenant through the power of attorney, has filed Revision Application before the Tribunal under section 91 of the Act. The Revision application came to be dismissed by the Tribunal on 21st June, 1999. The Tribunal dismissed the Revision Application and confirmed the order passed by both the authorities below. The Tribunal while confirming the order proceeded on the footing that the original application was not filed within two years from dispossess