ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. Petitioner is raising challenge to the concurrent orders passed by all the three tenancy authorities below while rendering decision on application tendered by respondent no. 1 herein.

2. Respondent no. 1 presented an application to the Additional Tahsildar, Ambajogai on 911986 claiming recovery of possession of the tenanted agricultural property. According to respondent n. 1, he was tenant in respect of land admeasuring 17 gunthas out of survey no. 101 situate at village Revli, Tq. Majalgaon. He was also declared as owner under section 38 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Ownership certificate was also issued in his favour and he deposited the purchase price with Tahsil office on 28-3-1981. It is the contention of the respondent that he was issued ownership certificate on 16-6-1981 by tenancy authority which came to be registered with the registering authority by him. He further contends that he was dispossessed prior to 1-2-1957 and the respondents in the application before the Tahsildar have enforced their possession. Respondent / original applicant therefore claims recovery of possession of the property by dispossessing the persons who have enforced possession over the property.

3. Application was opposed by the respondents before the Tahsildar including the petitioner herein by filing written say. It is the contention of the non-applicants that the property belonged to Bhivsen Mundhe and his two other brothers by name Arjun and Narayan. They agreed to sell the same in favour of original non-applicant no. 2 / petitioner herein and put him in possession. It is also contended by the non-applicants before the Tahsildar that the applicant has lost possession since more than 30 years back and as such he cannot claim recovery of possession. Non-applicants also dispute correctness of the ownership certificate issued in favour of applicant /respondent no. 1 herein.

4. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Tahsildar was pleased to allow the application presented by the applicant / respondent no. 1 herein and directed delivery of possession in view of the order passed on 27-10-1987. Order passed by the Tahsildar was made subject matter of challenge before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Beed at the instance of petitioner herein in appeal bearing no. 20/1990. Appeal came to be dismissed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Beed by his order dt. 16-4-1990. Aggrieved petitioner carried the matter to Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in revision bearing case no. 160/B/91/B. The tribunal also after considering rival contentions was pleased to dismiss the revision application and confirm the order passed by the Tahsildar in respect of delivery of possession of the disputed property in favour of tenant / respondent no. 1 herein.

5. I have perused the orders passed by all the three tenancy authorities and heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised twofold objections to the impugned order passed by the trial court. According to the petitioner, application tendered by respondent no. 1 before the Tahsildar is not entertainable under section 38(E)(1) explanation of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1050 and the remedy available to the dispossessed tenant is by way of presenting application under section 98 of the Act. The another objection raised by the petitioner is in respect of bar of limitation. According to him, the application which is tendered by the tenant after more than 30 years of his alleged dispossession is not entertainable even under the provisions of section 38(E)(1) explanation of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that wherever the relevant provision is silent in respect of limitation, remedy is required to be availed within reasonable period. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the applicant has approached the tenancy authority after 30 years of al