Oral Judgment:

1. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkun, Pandharpur on 30.9.1982 in Tenancy Case No.84/B/Takali, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (in short, S.D.O.), Pandharpur Division, dated 15.9.1990 in Tenancy Appeal No.1 of 1983 and the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (in short, M.R.T.) on 21.6.1991.

2. Thebrief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:-

Tatya Vithoba Dethe was the tenant of lands bearing survey Nos.194, 196 and 207 situated in Village Takli, Tal. Pandharpur in District Solapur. Tatya’s son Dnyanoba and his brother Santaram purchased the suit land by a registered sale deed dated 18.4.1956 for a consideration of Rs.7000/-from the owners of the land i.e. Madhavdas Krishnaji Maysurkar, the predecessor in title of the present respondent. In 1985, the Tenancy Mahalkari commenced proceedings under Section 84B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the ground that the sale was invalid under Section 64 of the Act as it stood prior to the Amending Act of 1956. According to the Tenancy Mahalkari, the sale in favour of Dnyanoba and Santaram was invalid as it was not in favour of the tenant of the lands. Accordingly, an order was passed on 14.12.1958 by the Tenancy Mahalkari in Tenancy Case No.84/B/5, Takli, declaring the sale invalid. Since no notices were issued to either the landlord or to the petitioners, the respondent’s predecessor in title approached the Tenancy Awal Karkun and sought restoration of possession of the property on the ground that he had inherited the same. By an order dated 15.3.1973, the Awal Karkun, Pandharpur, passed an ex-parte order directing that the possession of the land be restored to him. The petitioners received an intimation directing them to hand over possession of the land to the respondent’s predecessor. It was at this juncture that the petitioners became aware of the order dated 14.12.1958 passed by the Tenancy Mahalkari as also the order passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkun.

3. An appeal was, therefore, preferred by the petitioners to the S.D.O. challenging both the aforesaid orders. The S.D.O. allowed the appeal by observing that Tatya was the tenant of the land on the date of the sale and hence the proper order should have been to restore the land to Tatya and not the landlords assuming the sale was invalid. The S.D.O. also held that the petitioners were in actual possession of the suit lands alongwith Tatya. The proceedings were then remanded to the Trial Court by the S.D.O. for a decision on merits. Revision applications were filed by both, the petitioners and the landlords before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The petitioners filed their revision application contending that instead of remanding the matter, the S.D.O. ought to have regularised the sale on payment of penalty. The revision filed by the landlords was allowed while the revision of the petitioners was dismissed, thus resulting in restoration of the order of the Tenancy Mahalkari and Tenancy Awal Karkun. The order of the S.D.O. remanding the matter to the Trial Court was set aside.

4. Aggrieved by the decision of the M.R.T. the petitioners preferred Special Civil Application No. 1616 of 1975 before this Court. By an order dated 5.11.1979, this Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored the order of the S.D.O. remanding the matter to the Trial Court. The proceedings commenced afresh after remand. The Tenancy Awal Karkun by his judgment and order dated 30.12.1982 declared the sale of 18.4.1956 in favour of Dnyanoba and Santaram, invalid and directed them to hand over the possession of the lands to the respondents herein.

5. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the S.D.O., Pandharpur. This appeal was dismissed by him on 15.9.1990.

6. The petitioners then preferred a revision application before the M.R.T., Pune. The revision application was heard and