ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

1. With consent, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner herein has challenged the Order dated 4th May, 2017 whereby the learned Member (Administrative), Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, has allowed the revision application and set aside the order dated 23rd February, 2017 passed by the Divisional Officer, allowing the application for condonation of delay of 11 years and 9 months in filing Tenancy Appeal No. 109 of 2015.

3. A brief narration of the facts leading to this petition:

The petitioner Company is the owner of the property bearing Gut No. 59 Hissa No.1 (part), admeasuring 69 H-51R-07p situated at Village Chitalsar, Manpada, Taluka & District Thane. (The said property shall be hereinafter referred to as “the subject property”.) Shri Narayan Ganu Tangdi, the predecessor of the respondents nos.1/1 to 1/9 hereinafter referred to as the respondents) claimed to be an agricultural tenant in respect of the subject property. In the year 1991 he filed an application under Section 70(b) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (B.T.&A.L.Act). The petitioner herein initially contested the said proceeding under Section 70(b). However, subsequently the petitioner failed to appear, and by Order dated 23rd February, 2004, the learned ALT declared said Narayan Ganu Tangdi as a protected tenant in respect of the subject property.

4. The petitioner filed an appeal before the SDO, Thane along with an application for condoning the delay of 11 years and 9 months in filing the tenancy appeal. The petitioner claimed that it had no intimation whatsoever of the Order dated 24th February, 2004. The petitioner further stated that it had learnt about the said order for the first time on 23rd October, 2015. The said order was received on 29th October, 2015, and an appeal with application for condonation of delay was filed immediately there after.

5. The respondents claimed that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 6 of the Forest Act before the Deputy Collector (Private Forest) Thane Division and requested to exclude the subject property from the purview of the Forest Act. Said Narayan Tangdi had filed an intervention application in the proceedings under Section 6 of the Private Forest Act contending that he was a tenant of the subject property. The Deputy Collector (Private Forest) Thane Division, Thane allowed the said intervention application and by judgment and order dated 27th December, 2004, exempted the subject property whereof Narayan Ganu Tangdi was a tenant and ordered restoration of the subject property to the intervenor Narayan Tangdi.

6. The respondent therefore disputed that the petitioner had no knowledge about the proceedings under Section 70(b) of the B.T. & A.L. Act. The respondents claimed that Narayan Tangdi had participated in all forest proceedings till the year 2014 as he was in possession of the subject property and was declared as a tenant in 70(b) proceedings. The respondents claimed that the petitioners had full knowledge about the decision of 70(b) proceedings at every stage.

7. The learned SDO allowed the application for condonation of delay mainly on the ground that the Order under Section 70(b) was passed without serving a notice on the petitioner. The learned SDO accepted the contention of the petitioner that they were not aware of the order passed in 70(b) proceeding and that they had learnt about the same for the first time on 21st October, 2015. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in N. Balkrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123, the SDO held that the delay was sufficiently explained and hence condoned the delay of 11 years and 9 months in filing the appeal.

8. The respondents challenged the said Order in Revision Application No. TNC/REV/THN/L-150 of 2017. The Revisional Authority held that Narayan Tangdi had intervened in the proceedings under Section 6 of the Forests Act, and that the petitioner herein was fully aware that h