1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) dated 31/07/1992 in appeal against the order dated 30/09/1985 passed by the Additional Tahsildar & ALT, Vasai. There is a chequered history in respect of the dispute arising between the parties.

3. Briefly stated, the father of the respondents one Ziprya was initially declared as a tenant by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT) by order dated 19/08/1959. He, however, did not pay the purchase price and, thereafter, an application was made by the landlord before the Additional Tahsildar and ALT, Vasai under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (For short “B.T. & A.L. Act”) The Additional Tahsildar made an inquiry on the application filed by the landlord dated 11/6/1966 and the Circle Inspector submitted report on 16/12/1966 after preparing the panchanama. The statements of parties were recorded. The statement of the said Ziprya, however, could not be recorded since, according to the Circle Inspector, he was absconding. The ALT further observed that the Petitioner was cultivating the land as a tenant and the said Ziprya was absent from the village after the purchase price was fixed and, therefore, he held that earlier order dated 19/08/1959 should be treated as nullity and fresh proceedings should be taken to dispose of the lands in the name of the real tenant, the petitioner herein. Thereafter, further inquiry was held and the landlord admitted that the Petitioner herein was a real tenant in possession. Panchas also supported this fact. The Circle Inspector also in his report stated that the petitioner was cultivating the land since 8/10 years and, therefore, he was a lawful tenant and, therefore, purchase price was fixed at Rs 3000/- and the ALT held that petitioner’s name should be entered in the revenue record as tenant in possession since tiller’s day and that a certificate of purchase under section 32-M should be issued. Accordingly, the said certificate was issued on 07/06/1968 and the entry was made in the record of rights.

4. It appears that a complaint was filed by the MLA of the said village and, on the basis of the said complaint, Additional Tahsildar & ALT initiated proceedings under section 36-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. These proceedings were initiated almost after a lapse of 18 years from the order declaring the petitioner as tenant in 1968. In the said proceedings, notices were issued to the parties and daughters of the original tenant were brought on record. The ALT came to the conclusion that this was a fit case for restoration of the land to the tribal and, therefore, he passed an order under section 36-A for restoration of the land to the daughters of the said Ziprya by judgment and order dated 30/01/1984. This order was challenged by the petitioner herein before the MRT. The MRT was pleased to allow the appeal and the order of the Additional Tahsildar & ALT, Vasai was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh inquiry in accordance with law. The MRT held that the provisions of section 36-A of the Code were not applicable to the facts of the said case since the amending Act came into force on 06/07/1974 and under the circumstances the matter was remanded. After remand, the Additional Tahsildar held that the said Ziprya never cultivated the suit land and it was cultivated by the petitioner and he was in possession after full payment of purchase price. He, therefore, held that the tribal could not prove that the land was in possession of their father as tenant as on 01/04/1957 and, therefore, held that there was no transfer within the meaning of section 2(1)(i) of the Restoration Act and, therefore, proceedings were dropped. The said order was passed on 30/09/1985. Against this order, an appeal was filed by the respondents before the MR