1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the present matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 01.11.2010, passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Revision Petition NO. 6/B/2010/AN.

3. The particulars and events which are disclosed by the petitioner in this petition are as under.

The agricultural land bearing Gut No. 680(Old Survey No. 296) admeasuring 4H.23 R situated at village Telangshi, Tq. Jamkhed, District Ahmendagar, was initially owned and possessed by one Maruti Babu Jaybhaye. Maruti Babu Jaybhaye died on 13.7.1955 and the name of his legal heir, namely, Bhagwan @ Ganpati S/o Maruti Jaybhaye was recorded in the 7/12 extract vide mutation entry No.2300.

It is further contended that the said Bhagwan @ Ganpati is the father of petitioner and he was in actual possession of the suit land and accordingly was cultivating the same. Nobody was inducted as tenant for the suit land. The false entry was recorded in other rights column of Maruti Dhondi Jaybhaye as the tenant.

It is further contended that, on 09.03.1995 the said entry was deleted vide Mutation Entry No. 2154 and the name of Bhagwan @ Ganpati was recorded as “Khudd” in possession column of 7/12 extract. It is further contended that in the year 1980 the respondent No.7 along with one Haridas Lahanu Jaybhaye initiated a false tenancy Case No. 320/ 1/80 before the learned Tahsildar, Karjat against the father of the petitioner. In that case, they posed themselves as tenants. Father of petitioner was illiterate, poor and rustic villager and hence present respondent No.7 along with Haridas Lahanu Jaybhaye took undue advantage, and the order came to be passed against the father of the petitioner. Accordingly vide Mutation Entry No.4188 the name of the predecessor of the petitioner, namely, Bhagwan @ Ganpati was recorded in other rights column.

It is further contended that, one Haridas Lahanu Jaybhaye has executed a sale deed in favour of the respondent No.7 on 29.01.1986 and transferred ½ share in the said land. Accordingly, Mutation Entry No. 123 was recorded. The said land was allotted on tenure therefore, prior to executing sale deed, the necessary permission 5 W.P.2377.11 ought to have obtained from the Revenue Authority. Said alienation was illegal and void-ab-initio.

It is further contended that, the suit property was subdivided and the Mutation Entry No. 691 has been carried out on 21.07.1993. The said mutation entry is unlawful and hence the possession of respondent No.3 to 7, is illegal. The petitioner states that, father of petitioner died leaving behind sister, namely, Nilabai Gopinath Khade, wife namely Gayabai, son the present petitioner and daughter namely Nandubai Ganesh Gopalghare. It is further contended that, initially, the petitioner was not aware of the illegalities committed, but subsequently after though the record and documents the petitioner demanded the possession of land from respondent Nos. 3 to 7 but they refused to handover the possession.

It is further contended that, the petitioner through his advocate send a legal notice to the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 on 02.08.2007 and claimed for possession of land but the respondents have not paid any heed. In the year 2007, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 3 of 2007 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karjat and challenged the order passed by the learned Tahsildar in Tenancy Case No. 320/ 1/80. The respondent Nos. 2, 5 and 6 appeared before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer on 11.03.2008 and filed their reply.

It is further contended that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer has been partly allowed the appeal on 19.08.2009 and directed the Tahsildar to further inquire and verify the 7/12 extract and all mutation entries of suit land under the provisions of Tenancy law and further direct