1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1(b) to 1(g).

2. By this Petition, Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal in Review Application No.MRT-P-IV-5/83 whereby MRT was pleased to review its earlier order dated 16/10/1982 passed in Revision Application No. MRT-P-VI-5/80 and the order passed in Revision Application by the MRT was set aside so also the Order passed in Tenancy Appeal No.16 of 1976 dated 10/3/1980 and the order dated 6/5/1976 in Tenancy Case No.2/75 was confirmed.

3. It is necessary to state the facts little elaborately in this case since the matter has a chequered history. Gat No.416 admeasuring 3 Hectares 90R situated at village Hirve, Taluka Purandhar, District Pune was the land which was owned by the Petitioner herein. The Exemption Certificate was issued to the Petitioner under section 33B of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “BT & AL Act”). Against this order, Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal under section 76 of the BT & AL Act. This appeal was, however, rejected by the Tenancy Awal Karkun. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 initiated proceedings under section 88D. However, the respective application was rejected by the SDO by order dated 28/02/1968. Against this order, Respondent No.1 preferred Special Civil Application No. 1336 of 1968 in the High Court. However, this application was summarily dismissed in limine. Respondent No.1, thereafter, filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Junior Division bearing Suit No.80/1968. This suit was dismissed on 13/11/1968. The appeal preferred by Respondent No.1 against this order was also dismissed on 29/11/1968. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 initiated third round of litigation by filing application under section 37 of the BT & AL Act, seeking restoration of half portion of the land which was being cultivated by the Petitioner. In these proceedings Consent Terms were filed on 02/07/1973 and, in the Consent Terms, Respondent No.1 accepted half portion of the said land in question and gave up his claim in respect of remaining half portion. An order was passed in terms of the Consent Terms by the Tahsildar on 10/06/1973. Respondent No.1, thereafter, again, started fourth round of litigation by again filing application under section 37 of the BT & AL Act, claiming possession of the remaining half portion of the suit land. This application was filed on the ground that the landlord had sold half portion which was in his possession to third party by registered agreement dated 02/06/1973 and, therefore, in view of the provisions of section 37 of the said Act, he was entitled to get possession of the balance land. This application was allowed by the Tahsildar by his order dated 06/05/1976. Against this order, Petitioner preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 16 of 1976 which was allowed and the order passed by Tahsildar was set aside. Against this order, Respondent No.1 preferred Revision Application before the MRT. This revision was also dismissed by MRT by its judgment and order dated 16/10/1982. Respondent No.1, thereafter, filed a review application before the MRT. This review application, however, was allowed and the earlier order passed by the MRT and by SDO was set aside and the order dated 06/05/1976 passed by the Tahasildar, Purandhar in Tenancy Case No.2/75 was confirmed. The Petitioner is challenging the aforesaid order which was passed in review application before the MRT.

4. One of the contentions raised by the Petitioner in this Petition was that the review application was not maintainable before the MRT since there was no specific provision of review in the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. In support of the said submission, he relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court. However, Respondents relied upon another judgment of this Court which held that review application was mainta