The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to review must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication, and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the review application filed by the respondent.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respective respondents.

2. At the oral request of counsel for the petitioner, the following words are permitted to be deleted from prayer clause (a). "and LRC.TRB.6 of 1990" . Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

3. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 26.3.1991 passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay camp at Dhule in LRC. TRB C 1/1988 alongwith the appeal No. LRC.TRB.6 of 1990.

4. The background facts of the case are as under;-The petitioner is resident of village Chhadvel (K), District Dhule. The subject matter of the petition is land survey No. 110/2 admeasuring about 9 Acres and 21 Gunthas. The said land originally belongs and was in possession of one Pandit Shankar Patil. Shri Pandit Shankar Patil exchanged the land survey No. 110/2 to Ananda Sonu Kokani for his land survey No.492 and thereafter the said respondent No.3 Tribal Ananda Sonu Kokani sold the said land survey No. 110/2 to the present petitioner for Rs.5000/- in or about in the year 1971.

It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter the said land was entered in the revenue record in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner is in actual and physical possession of land survey No. 110/2 since 1971. According to the petitioner, the land was purchased in accordance with provisions of law particularly Section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Section 36 of the Code as it then stood recognized the character of heritable and transferable property from whom the petitioner purchased and was entitled to do so on his own. It is case of the petitioner that vendor of land sold the land entirely out of free will and for full consideration.

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 Tribal Ananda Sonu Kokani was never in possession of the land survey No.110/2 and only the title was passed in the name of tribal transferor. It is the case of the petitioner that since respondent No.3 was never in possession of the land survey No. 110/2, the petitioner entered into purchase transaction of the land survey No. 110/2. It is further case of the petitioner that after purchase of the said land, the petitioner effected several improvement in the land and by spending huge amount.

5. There were certain amendment in Section 36 of the Act and Officer of respondent No.1 served upon the petitioner a show cause notice and intimated proceeding for restoration of land survey No. 110/2 being case No. ALP/Chhadvel(K)19/76. A separate inquiry was held in respect of land survey No. 492 of village Korde being Adivasi Case No. 161 of 1977. The Tahsildar, Sakri tried case No. ALP Chhadvel (K) 19/76, after considering the say of both the parties. The Tahsildar was pleased to pass order for restoration of land survey No. 110/2 to the Tribal-transferor on 31.1.1986. It appears that the case being Adivasi case No. 161 of 1977 filed in respect of survey No. 492 was decided and the land was ordered to be given to the Non Tribal Mr. Pandit Shankar Patil.

6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.1.1986 passed by the Tahsildar, Sakri in case No. ALPChhadvel(K) 19/76, preferred an appeal being appeal No. LRC.TRB.6 of 1986 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay. The learned member of the M.R.T. Bombay camp at Dhule who heard the said appeal was please to allow the same by his judgment and order dated 8.6.1987.

7. The respondent No.3 herein filed review application being No. LRC.TRB. C 1 of 1988/LCR.TRB 6 of 1986 and also filed an appeal against the order dated 21.2.1986 passed by the learned Tahsildar, Sakri in Adivasi Case No. 161 of 1977 being appeal No. LRC.TRB 6 of 1990. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay Camp at Dhule was pleased to hear both the review and appeal together and was further pleased to dispose of both the matters by common judgment dated 26.3.1991. The Member of the Tribunal, was pleased