The main legal point established in the judgment is that a compromise deed does not extinguish the existing rights of the tenant, and the correction deed obtained by the petitioners was collusive and not binding on the tenant.

JUDGMENT

Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned advocates for the appearing parties.

2. The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order dated 19. 01.2009 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Beed and confirmed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, aurangabad.

3. The property in question is land Survey No. 40/a admeasuring 2 Hector 83 R. situated at village Dongaon, Taluka Kaij, District Beed. One Gangabhishan Shrikishan Ranwa was the original owner of land Survey No. 40 admeasuring 17 acres 12 Gunthas. The said Survey number was divided in five plots, Survey Nos. 40/a, 40/4, 40/5, 40/7 and 40/8. On 23-06-1969, Gangabhishan initiated proceedings against Yashwant, respondent No.1 for recovery of rent and possession of an area of 15 acre 35 Gunthas from land Survey No. 40/a and 7 acre 27 Gunthas from Survey No.37. In the said proceedings, a compromise was recorded between landlord Gangabhishan and tenant Yashwant, whereby it was mutually agreed that Yashwanta the tenant shall retain 7 acres of agricultural property from land Survey No. 40/a and release 8 acre 35 Gunthas of Survey No. 40 and 7 acre 27 Gunthas from Survey No. 37 in favour of the landlord.

4. Respondents no. 1 to 6 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 73 of 1985 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kaij, seeking perpetual injunction in respect of land Survey No. 40/8 admeasuring 2 Hector 83 R. situated at village Dongaon, Taluka Kaij, District Beed (for short, 'suit land') against the petitioners and other respondents.

. after hearing the parties, RCS No. 73 of 1985 came to be dismissed.

5. The petitioners, who are the subsequent purchasers of 60 R portion of the land Survey No. 40, filed RCS No. 376 of 1985 only against landlord Gangabhishan for correction of sale deed for correcting 3 H. 43 R in the place of 60 R land. The suit was allowed ex-parte on 30.07.1988. In Regular Darkhast No. 30 of 1989 (Bansi Versus Gangabhishan), orders for correction of sale deed dated 13.06.1978 were passed. In the execution proceedings through the Court Commissioner, the area in the sale deed of the petitioners was corrected from 60 R to 3 H. 43 R.

6. By Regular Civil appeal No. 40 of 1994, the trial Court's Judgment in RCS No. 73 of 1985 was challenged and the appeal came to be allowed. The petitioners challenged the appellate Court's Judgment and Decree by filing Second appeal No. 462 of 2007. The Second appeal was allowed. The Judgment and Decree passed by the District Court was set-aside. This Court directed the trial Court to refer the issue of tenancy to the competent authority. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kaij referred the matter to the agricultural Land Tribunal.

7. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, held that father of the original plaintiffs i.e. Yashwant Madhav Ghule was not a tenant of land Survey No. 40/8 and further held that the said land is free from tenancy. Respondents No. 1 to 6 challenged the order passed by the Tribunal, by filing appeal before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, which was allowed by order dated 19. 01.2009 by holding that respondents No. 1 to 6 are the tenants of Survey No. 40/8. The petitioners challenged the order passed by the Deputy Collector, by filing Revision No. 66/B/2015/B before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, which came to be dismissed. Hence, the present petition.

8. Heard Mr. V. J. Dixit, the learned Senior advocate for the petitioners, Mr. G. V. Sukale, the learned advocate for respondent No.2 and Mr. B. S. Choure, the learned advocate for respondents No. 8a to 8E.

9. Mr. Dixit, learned Senior advocate for the petitioners assailed the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, aurangabad, contending that, the compromise was never acted upon as the tenant failed to pay the consideration price and no sale deed was executed. He further submitted