1. This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 24th October, 1991 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Revision Petition No. 101/B/90/Beed declaring the respondent No. 1 Kishanrao, i.e. petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 1822 of 1992 and 1035 of 1992, as tenant of the suit land.

2. The background facts for filing this writ petition as disclosed in the writ petition are as under :

" The petitioner herein is a daughter of late Gangubai wife of Bhagwanrao, who was the land owner of Survey No. 122 and 142 to the extent of 3 Acre and 5 Gunthas, situated at village Tarfa Balgujzar, District Beed. From the said land, one Sahebrao Ranuji was the protected tenant.

The mother of the petitioner Gangubai did file an application under Section 44 read with Section 32 subsection (2) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (For short, “said Act”) on 7the January, 1961 in the office of Tahsildar, Beed alleging that the suit land is needed for personal cultivation of the petitioner since there is no source of income for the petitioner. Accordingly, after hearing the respective parties, the Tahsildar, Beed ordered resumption of the suit land in favour of the petitioner herein (File No.196/Tenancy/1959).

The mother of the petitioner Gangubai submitted an application with prayer to put her in possession of the suit land, before the Naib Tahsildar (Land Reforms) Beed. It is the case of the petitioner that, Tahsildar (Land Reforms) Beed, issued the order for delivery of possession of the suit land and accordingly directions were also issued to the Circle Inspector, Beed for implementation of said order. But, due to the obstruction by the respondent No. 1 herein, possession of the suit land could not be handed over to Gangubai, and panchanama to that effect was also drawn by the Circle Inspector on 7th October, 1964, wherein it is recited that, the respondent No. 1 i.e. Kishanrao Limbaji Kadam stated that, he is a tenant over the suit land and is in actual possession.

It is further case of the petitioner that, later on in said proceedings for resumption and its execution, inquiry about tenancy of the respondent No.1 was held, and the Naib Tahsildar (Land Reforms) Beed on 14th November, 1964 passed orders and observed that, in fact, the respondent No. 1 Kishanrao is not a tenant over the suit land and he is in actual possession of the suit land. However, the said authority held that, he has no jurisdiction to evict the said Kishanrao from the suit land.

The petitioner filed an appeal No.11/336/64 against the order of the Naib Tahsildar (Land Reforms), Beed before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Beed. The said appeal was decided by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Beed on 6th August, 1965 with findings that, the respondent No.1 herein i.e. Kishanrao, is not a tenant over the suit land. It was further observed in the said order that, Kishanrao is a trespasser in the suit land and original landlady Gangubai was directed to seek redressal of her grievance for resumption of the suit land by approaching the Civil Court to evict the respondent No. 1 Kishanrao."

3. It is the case of the petitioner that, the respondent No. 1 was in illegal possession of the suit land since 196465 though he had no concern with the suit land. The mother of the petitioner Gangubai filed Special Civil Suit No. 4 of 1974 against the respondent No. 1 herein, for recovery of possession of the suit land, mesne profit and costs. The said suit was decreed in favour of Gangubai on 22nd April, 1977 with costs. Direction was given to the respondent No.1 Kishanrao to put the mother of the petitioner Gangubai in actual possession of the suit land as detailed in paragraph No.1 of the plaint. It was further directed to the respondent No.1 to pay the original plaintiff Gangubai, mesne profit of Rs. 2000/per year, in all Rs.6000/for three years i.e. 197071, 197172 and 197273. Further enquiry was