(B.R. Gavai, J.)

1. The appellants challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court dated 5.3.2004 in a bunch of Writ Petition Nos.2380/1991, 2446 of 1991 and 2449 of 1991, thereby allowing the writ petitions and remitting back the matters to the Surplus Land Distribution Tribunal, Yavatmal (hereinafter referred to as SLDT for the sake of brevity).

2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeals are as under:

One Madhukar Yerawar, who is the respondent no.2 in the appeals was the owner of agriculture land situated at Ghatana and Lone. Since it was noticed that he was holding the land in excess of the area permissible as provided under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holding ) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) a Revenue Case no. 188/60A(5)/7576 was filed against the said respondent. The said land owner filed a return as required under sub-section 1 of Section 20 of the said Act. On the basis of the return, the SLDT passed an order on 31.10.1984 thereby holding that an area admeasuring 111.17 acres was surplus i.e in excess of the permissible land. Being aggrieved thereby the land owner went in appeal under the provisions of Section 33(1) of the said Act before the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 27.2.1985 partly allowed the appeal and thereby directed the SLDT to rework the determination of the surplus land. Rest of the claim of the landowner was rejected. Being aggrieved thereby the land owner preferred W.P. No. 933/1987. That petition came to be withdrawn. The SLDT on remand re-determined the surplus area to be 89.35 acres vide order dated 31.8.1989. However, the same was also challenged before the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 24.9.1990 again remanded the matter for violating the provisions of Section 10 and Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Agriculture Lands (Ceiling on holding) (Declaration and taking possession of Surplus Land) and Amendment Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). In the proceedings before the learned SLDT the persons who had purchased the lands from the original land holder have also intervened. The learned SLDT vide order dated 7.1.1991, after taking into consideration the various transactions, directed that the land from the last purchaser should be taken first so as to make out a deficit in the surplus land as declared. The same was challenged by way of appeals by the respondents who were subsequent purchasers. The learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 24.7.1991 dismissed the appeals. Being aggrieved thereby the aforesaid three petitions came to be filed before this court. The learned Single Judge of this court by a detail and elaborate order dated 5.3.2004 came to the conclusion that the SLDT, so also the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal have failed to take into consideration the purport of Rule 4 and as such remanded back the matter for following the provisions of Rule 4 of the said Rules. The learned Single Judge took a view that if the transferee of the land to whom the land is transferred in contravention of the provisions of Section 10 are more than one, then the procedure prescribed under Rule 4 is required to be followed. It is held by the learned Single Judge that the SLDT has fixed up the land for making the deficiency case by ignoring the provisions of Rule 4.

3. Shri Dhobe, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the learned Single Judge has particularly erred in holding that Rule 4 was applicable to the facts of the present case. It is submitted that the conjoint reading of Section 8, 10 and 21 would reveal that reference to Rule 4 was not at all permissible in the present case.

4. Shri Pathan, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader appearing on behalf of the State, also submits that the harmonious consideration of Section 10 would show tha