JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners are assailing the decision dated 26.04.1996 rendered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (‘MRT’) in Revenue Appeal No.(A) 03 of 1995, whereby the appeal preferred by the Respondents is allowed and the eviction order dated 06.12.1976, passed by the Tahsildar, Amalner in Misc. Revenue Application No.284 of 1976 is set aside.

2. The land in dispute admeasures 90 ares and is assigned G.No.105 of village Nanded, Tahsil Amalner. By order dated 06.12.1976, which is set aside by the MRT, the Tahsildar, Amalner, in purported exercise of power under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (‘MLR Code’) directed that Respondent No.1 be evicted from the said land. The eviction is premised on the finding that the alienation by the Watandar of new tenure in favour of Respondent No.1 is contrary to the provisions of Section 5(3) of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 (‘1958 Act’), in the absence of permission of the Collector to the alienation.

3. The litigation has a chequered history, and in the interest of clarity, it would be necessary to briefly touch the events and the litigations preceding the judgment of the MRT, which is impugned herein.

4. Concededly, the disputed land was a koli inam land. In view of the 1958 Act, the inam was abolished and the disputed land was re-granted to the Watandars on new tenure. Shri Sahadu Shanku Koli, in whose favour the other Watandar Tanku relinquished his share, entered into an agreement to sell dated 10.05.1968 in favour of Respondent No.1. It is discernible from record, that Sahadu Koli assured the Respondent No.1 that the land will be converted to old tenure by deposing in the Treasury the 13 times assessment and nazarana to facilitate the execution of the sale deed.

5. It is irrefutable that on 12.05.1968, Sahadu Koli preferred an application for converting the land into old tenure and paid the 13 times assessment and the nazarana. The agreement was registered on 10.01.1971 and the Respondent No.1 was placed in possession of the land. Pursuant to the registration of the agreement, an appropriate mutation entry was recorded. The Watandars – alienators objected to the mutation, which objection was brushed aside and the mutation entry certified.

6. The Watandars – alienators preferred an appeal No.19 of 1973 questioning the mutation entry in favour of the alienee – Respondent No.1 herein, which was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer. A further appeal preferred before the Collector, Jalgaon, met a similar fate.

7. It is further discernible from record that the mutation entry in the name of Respondent No.1, which was certified and confirmed in appeal, was recorded in the revenue register as a disputed entry since the Circle Inspector certified the mutation entry with the remark that, “transaction is in violation of 1958 Act”. Pursuant to a report received from the Circle Inspector, the Tahsildar initiated suo motu inquiry under Section 59 of the MLR Code, vide Misc. Revenue Application No.284 of 1974. The Tahsildar held that the transaction was illegal since the land was not converted into old tenure and as noted supra, directed eviction of Respondent No.1, by an order dated 06.12.1976.

8. Respondent No.1 assailed the order dated 06.12.1976 rendered by the Tahsildar in Misc. Appeal No.284 of 1976, which was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Amalner, vide order dated 30.09.1977. In the interregnum, since there was no stay to the order of eviction, Respondent No.1 was evicted on 25.01.1977 and Sahadu Koli was placed in possession.

9. Respondent No.1 then preferred Watan Appeal No.09 of 1977, which was dismissed by the Additional Collector, Jalgaon, vide order dated 22.08.1978. A further appeal was preferred before the Revenue Commissioner, who decided the said appeal No.2311 of 1979 vide order dated 07.12.1979 and was pleased to remand the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh decision.

10. The Tahsildar decided the matter afresh and vide order