R. M. LODHA, J. :- The question referred to the larger Bench is : whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has jurisdiction to review its own order passed in the Revision Application under section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948?

2. While making reference, the Single Judge noticed the judgment in the se of Anoopchand Nathmal Baid vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur and others, 1986 Mh.L.J. 520 wherein while considering the question whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal) has the power under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidharbha Region) Act, to review its own decision, the Single Judge held that under section 315(1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short, MLR Code), the Tribunal could exercise its jurisdiction only in cases arising under the provisions of enactment specified in Schedule T of the MLR Code and since the Bo Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidharbha Region) Act, 1958 is not referred in the schedule, the powers which the Tribunal could exercise were only t conferred by the Tenancy Act and, thus, the power of review could n exercised by the Tribunal in the cases arising under the Tenancy Act. Reference order, another judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in the ca Genu Laxman Shinde vs. Chandrakant Dagadu Kotulkar, 1999(1) Mh.L.J. has been noticed wherein it was held that the Tribunal possesses power to review its order passed under section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1948. Having noticed the inconsistency in the aforesaid two judgment Single Judge thought fit to have the said controversy resolved by the 1 Bench. This is how the matter has been placed before us.

3. It is not necessary to refer to the facts of the case in details. S however, to say that with regard to the tenancy rights in respect of Gat No. admeasuring 3 Hectares 90 Ares at village Hirave, Taluka Purandar, District Pune, the dispute ultimately reached the Tribunal in the Revision Application under section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 194 short, the Tenancy Act). The Tribunal dismissed the said Revision Application on 16-10-1982. The present respondents filed review application before Tribunal seeking review of the order dated 16-10-1982 which was allowed 11-1987. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred writ petition raisin ground that the review application made by the respondents before the Tribunal was not maintainable and hence, the order allowing the review application bad-in-law.

4. The Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1939 (for short, Act of 1939 enacted to provide for the constitution of the Revenue Tribunal for the pro of Bombay. It came into force on 29th May, 1939. The powers and function the Bombay Revenue Tribunal constituted under section 3 of the Act of were provided in section 4. Section 4 of the said Act reads thus -

4. (1) The Tribunal shall exercise such jurisdiction to entertain a and revise decisions in revenue cases as was vested in the Pray Government immediately before the first day of April 1937 und law for the time being in force.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the fore provision the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain appeals revise decisions -

(a) in all revenue cases arising under the provisions of the enactments specified in the Schedule in which such jurisdiction was vested the Provincial Government immediately before the first April 1937, and

(b) in all cases specified in section 9.

(3) Save as expressly provided in any enactment for the time being in force, the Provincial Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct by general or special order that the Tribunal shall also have jurisdiction to entertain and decide appeals and applications for revision in any case in which the Provincial Government may have jurisdiction to entertain and decide such appeals and applications. The Provincial Government may, at any ti