The main legal point established in the judgment is the restricted nature of the revisional jurisdiction of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) under Section 76 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

JUDGMENT

Anuja Prabhudessai, J. - Rule. With consent rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. This petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 31st December, 2019 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT), Pune in Revision Application NO. P/I/1/2017. By the impugned judgment, the MRT has set aside the order dated 30/01/2015 passed by learned Tahsildar, Maval in Tenancy Case No.32-G/SR/52/2013, and order dated 18.12.2016 passed by learned Sub Divisional Officer in Tenancy Appeal SR/142/2015 and consequently dismissed the proceedings filed by the Petitioner under Section 32G of Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

3. The dispute in the present case is in respect of an agricultural land under Survey No. 70/1 (New Gat No.199) Village, Sudawadi, Maval, Pune. It is not in dispute that the said land was owned by Vitthal Ganesh Kulkarni. The said land was in possession of Bhika Dhondu Mahar, the grand father of the Petitioner, as a tenant. The Petitioner claims that his father Jaywant Bhika Mahar continued to be in possession of the said land as on the Tillers day and as such became deemed purchaser under the provisions of the Act.

4. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that the owners of the land illegally sold the said tenanted land to Respondent No.1 by Sale Deed dated 29th May, 1964. On the basis of the said sale deed, the name of the Respondent No.1 came to be recorded in Survey Records under Mutation Entry No.1003. The Petitioner therefore filed proceedings under Section 32G r/w. Section 64 and 84(b) being Tenancy Case No. 74 of 2006 and sought a declaration that the said sale deed 29.5.1964 is illegal, and further sought fixation of the purchase price in respect of the tenanted land.

5. The Respondents resisted the claim of the Petitioner mainly on the ground that Bhika Mahar was lawfully dispossessed and the original owner was put in possession of the land prior to the Tillers day. The Respondents claim that the original owner continued to be in possession of the land till the date of execution of the sale deed and since then Respondent No.1 continues to be in possession of the said land.

6. In the previous round of litigation, by order dated 19.12.2007, learned Tahsildar had allowed the Tenancy Case and declared that the sale deed executed in favour of the Respondent No.1 is contrary to the provisions of Section 64 of the Tenancy Act and is therefore invalid. Learned Tahsildar directed to record the name of the owner in the Survey Record and gave liberty to the Petitioner to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 32G. In Appeal, being Tenancy Appeal No. 14 of 2008, learned SDO by judgment dated 8th August, 2013 set aside the order of the Tahsildar and remanded the matter with directions to adjudicate the issue of possession.

7. Accordingly, learned Tahsildar heard the parties on the issue of possession. Relying upon mutation entry No.742 and the entries in the survey records, learned Tahsildar recorded a finding that Jaywant Bhika Mahar, the father of the Petitioner, was in possession of the subject land as on the Tillers day. Learned Tahsildar further observed that the owner had not obtained possession of the land within the statutory period of two years. Hence, by order dated 30th January, 2015, learned Tahsildar allowed the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 32G and declared the Petitioner to be deemed purchaser of the subject land and fixed the purchase price at Rs.8810/-. Adjudication under Section 32G is culminated in the issuance of Certificate under Section 32M of the Act.

8. This order was challenged before the learned SDO in Tenancy Appeal No. 142 of 2015. Upon hearing the respective parties, learned SDO held that Bhika Dhondu Mahar was a protected tenant. Learned SDO observed that though the mutation entry no.702 refers to order dated 7/1/1955 whereby possession of the land was ordered to be handed over to the original owner, the Re