1) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard.

2) The Writ Jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the common order dated 22nd March, 2013 passed by the learned President of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, by which order, the Revision Applications being Revision Application Nos. 11B of 2012, 12B of 2012 and 13B of 2012 and 14B of 2012, came to be dismissed and resultantly the order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer in Tenancy Appeal Nos. 18 of 2010 to 21 of 2010 came to be confirmed.

3) The facts necessary to be cited for an adjudication of the above Petitions can be stated thus:

The Respondents claim to be the tenants of the lands in question being Survey Nos. 62/4 (new Gat No.141) admeasuring 1 Hector 0.2 Ares in Writ Petition No. 6720 of 2013 and Writ Petition No.6721 of 2013, and land bearing Gat No.179 (old Survey No.75/4) admeasuring 1 Hector 20 Ares in Writ Petition No.6723 of 2013 and Writ Petition No.6724 of 2013 situated at Village Shivnai, Taluka Dindori, District Nashik which lands the Petitioners claim to be their ancestral properties. The said lands are Patil Vatan Lands. On the enactment of the Maharashtra Revenue Patel's (Abolition of Office) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the Patel's Abolition Act”), the said vatans got abolished and the lands got vested in the state Government. By an order passed on 4th July, 1968, the State Government was pleased to regrant the lands to the owner Shri. Vasudev Ekbote, on whose demise, the ownership of the lands devolved upon the Petitioners in the above Petitions. This was pursuant to the applications made by the owner on 4th July, 1968 The Petitioners herein filed tenancy case No. 2 of 2003, subject matter of Writ Petition Nos.6720 of 2013 and Writ Petition No.6721 of 2013 and tenancy case No.1 of 2003, subject matter of Writ Petition No.6723 of 2013 and Writ Petition No.6724 of 2013, for possession of the said lands under the provisions of Section 32-O and 32-P(2)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the BTAL Act”). The Respondents in the above Petitions appeared in the said proceedings and resisted the claim of the Petitioners. The Respondents, in turn, filed applications contending that the said tenancy cases filed by the Petitioners were not maintainable. In the said applications, it was the case of the Respondents that the lands in question were being cultivated by the Tenants from the period anterior to the tillers day. It was further contended that the provisions of the Section 32-O and 32-P of the BTAL Act are not applicable. It was further contended by the Respondents that they have become deemed purchasers on the tillers day and hence, the tenancy cases being Nos.1 of 2003 and 2 of 2003 are required to be dismissed.

It appears that the Petitioners led evidence in the said tenancy cases filed by them. The Respondents, in turn, filed tenancy case No. 4 of 2004, subject matter of Writ Petition No.6720 of 2013 and Writ Petition No.6721 of 2013, tenancy Case No.5 of 2004, subject matter of a Writ Petition No.6723 of 2013 and Writ Petition No.6724 of 2013, invoking Section 32-G of the BTAL Act for fixation of the purchase price. The Petitioners resisted the said applications filed by the Respondents by filing Written Statements on 25th October, 2004. In support of the said applications, the Respondents had filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief on 25th March, 2008 in the said tenancy cases and they were cross-examined by the Advocate representing the Petitioners. The Tahsildar, Dindori, Nashik allowed the tenancy cases filed by the Petitioners being 2 of 2003 and 1 of 2003 and dismissed the tenancy cases Nos. 4 of 2004 and 5 of 2004, filed by the Respondents herein. The gist of the reasoning of the Tahsildar was that since there was a regrant, the applications filed under