Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 4th July, 1991 passed in Revision Application No.MRT/P/X1-9/90(TNC-B-324/90) by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune ("M.R.T" for short) whereby the order dated 25th June, 1990 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Junnar Sub Division, Khed, Pune in Appeal No.15/1986 was set aside and the order passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Ambegaon in Tenancy Case No.463/1985 dated 27th November, 1986 came to be restored. The Factual Matrix :

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the land in dispute bearing Gat No.962 of village Shingave, taluka- Ambegaon, district- Pune was, originally, held on tenancy rights by one Ganpat Gorade, who had purchased the same under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("Act" for short). After the death of said Ganpat, name of his son Ramchandra Ganpat Gorade came to be recorded as Manager of the joint Hindu family. The said Ramchandra sold the said land to one Baban Tukaram Gorade somewhere in the year 1975 for a consideration of Rs.6,000/- without prior permission as required under section 43 of the Act. Consequently, default proceedings under section 84-C of the Act were initiated by the Agricultural Land Tribunal, Ambegaon ("A.L.T." for short) and the said land was forfeited to the Government.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the purchaser Shri Baban Tukaram Gorade filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Khed. The said appeal was allowed and remanded for hearing afresh.

5. On remand, again fresh order of forfeiture of subject land to the Government was passed. Since no appeal and/or revision was filed against this order, the order of forfeiture of the land became final and conclusive. The State Government was directed to dispose of the same as per the provisions of law.

6. Accordingly, applications were invited from the persons desiring to get the land allotted. No application except that of respondent No.4 was received within the time frame fixed. The Tahasildar, Ambegaon, vide declaration dated 27th November, 1986, allotted the said land to the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 deposited the requisite amount in the Government Treasury and obtained the Kabulayat.

7. Being aggrieved by the above order, petitioner filed Tenancy Appeal No.15/1987 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Khed (Pune) to challenge the order of allotment of land made in favour of respondent No.4. The Sub Divisional Officer vide his order dated 25th June, 1990 allowed appeal and remanded it to the Tahasildar, Ambegaon for hearing afresh.

8. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Sub Divisional Officer, respondent No.4 filed revision being Revision Application No.9/1990 before M.R.T.

9. The M.R.T., after considering entire oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the petitioner Dattatraya did not have any locus standi to file appeal as the subject land had been sold by the respondent No.2, Manager of the joint Hindu family of the petitioner, to the third party without prior permission of the State Government, which, ultimately, resulted in its forfeiture to the State Government and that the said order of forfeiture of land for want of challenge from any quarter became final and conclusive, and on the top of it, the said land was allotted to respondent No.4 following due process of law. It was also held that before allotment, applications were invited by beat of drum for disposal of the subject land. The M.R.T., thus, held on facts that due procedure for allotment of land was followed and that the allotment of land was legal and valid.

10. It was also reiterated by M.R.T. in its order that since the tenant had violated the provisions of the Act by disposing of the subject land without obtaining prior permission as required under the Act, his rights as tenant were ex