S.S. SHINDE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable with the consent of counsel appearing for the parties and petition is being heard finally.

2. This writ petition takes an exception to the impugned order dated 04th August 2017 passed by Ld. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in Tenancy Revision Application No. 25 of 2010, KP/I/1/2012 and KP/II/1/2012.

3. The dispute in the present case arises out of the Proceeding initiated under Section 32-G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Said Act") by the respondents i.e. landlord, in respect of land bearing Survey No. 102 Gat No. 395 admeasuring 5H-26R situated in Village-Mendholi, Tal. Ajra, Dist. Kolhapur. It is the case of the petitioner that, the respondents categorically admitted the predecessors of the petitioners were cultivating the suit property as tenants on the tillers day i.e. 01.04.1957, and the said application further states that the landlords have no objections if the tenants are ready and willing to purchase the property. Notices of the said proceeding were never issued to the petitioner. The respondent landlords perpetrated fraud upon the Revenue Officers by signing on behalf of the petitioners and his other co-sharers.

4. It is further the case of the petitioner that, it can be seen by naked eye that the signature appearing in the purported statements in 32-G proceeding recorded by Tahasildar and ALT, Ajra bare no resemblance with the actual signature of the petitioner. The Tahasildar and ALT, Ajra was pleased to pass an order dated 12.12.2003 and a purchase price in respect of only half of the suit property was fixed in favour of the petitioner by holding that the petitioners were not ready and willing to purchase the entire property. The petitioner was not served any notice of the said order. They received a notice of delivery of possession dated 23.01.2004 and on receipt of this notice they came to know about the fraud perpetrated by the respondents. The petitioner immediately wrote a letter to the Collector seeking information about the notice dated 23.01.2004. In the meanwhile a panchnama was conducted in the absence of the petitioner and on the same day i.e. 05.02.2004 possession was shown to be handed over. The petitioner having no knowledge or notice of the order dated 12.12.2003, filed an application before the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Commission forwarded the request of the petitioner to Tahasildar and ALT, Ajra. Tahasildar and ALT, Ajra refused to take cognizance of the letter by stating that the papers of 32-G proceeding were forwarded to SDO, Gadhinglaj.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that, he ultimately approached the State Right to Information Cell (in short "RTI Cell") and the RTI Cell, Mumbai directed Tahasildar and ALT, Ajra to produce papers of 32-G proceeding, and accordingly on 09.06.2008, Tahasildar and ALT, Ajra produced papers before RTI Cell, Mumbai. The petitioner immediately applied for certified copies of the papers and filed a Tenancy Appeal No. 15 of 2008. The petitioner also filed application for condonation of delay.

6. The Ld. SDO, Gadhinglaj was pleased to partially allow the Appeal and remanded the matter back to Tahasildar for fixing the purchase price in respect of 2.88 Hectors of the suit property which was not sold to the petitioner in 2003.

7. The respondents filed Tenancy Revision Application No. 25 of 2010 challenging the said order passed by SDO, Gadhinglaj but never obtained any interim relief.

8. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Tahasildar and ALT, Ajra, concluded the fresh inquiry and fixed the purchase price in respect of the remaining 2.88 Hectors and vide order dated 01.10.2010. The said order dated 01.11.2010 was challenged by Tanubai Naik and Suvarna Dilip Deshpande by way of filing Tenancy Appeals no. 4 of 2011 and 9 of 2010 before the SDO, Gadhinglaj respectively. However both the said Tenancy Appeals were dismissed by SDO, G