The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of correctly applying the relevant provisions of the law to the case at hand and the consequences of misapplying the legal provisions.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Pilankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Karandikar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 8.

2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges an order dtd. 5/9/2013 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short "MRT") whereby a Revision Application as filed by respondent nos. 1 to 8 (for short "the respondents") has been allowed, thereby setting aside the order dtd. 28/12/2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in BD/Tenancy Appeal No. 24/2007 and the order dtd. 13/7/2007 passed by the Tahsildar & A.L.T. Vasai in Tenancy Case no. 84/1/05 was restored.

3. It is the petitioners case that petitioner no. 1 was the purchaser/owner of agricultural land, bearing Survey no. 91, Hissa no. 1 and Survey no. 91, Hissa No. 2 admeasuring 32670 sq. yards and 2700 sq. mts. respectively, situated at Village Valiv, Taluka Vasai, District Thane. It is stated that the land was purchased under the provisions of Sec. 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (for short "BTAL Act"). It is the case of the petitioner that after the purchase of the said land, on 27/10/1986 the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 and 2 entered into an Agreement to Sale, in respect of both the lands under which respondent nos. 1 and 2 paid substantial amounts to the petitioner. However, the sale could not be completed although possession of land was handed over in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2. On 11/5/1994, second Agreement to Sale was entered between the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the earlier agreement dtd. 27/10/1986 was cancelled. It is the case of the petitioner that again this sale could not be completed, as a final registered sale deed could not be entered between the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 and 2.

4. Without completing the sale in a manner known to law and in the absence of a registered sale deed in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2, as the lands in question were in possession of respondent nos. 1 and 2, the petitioner filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer under Sec. 84 of the BTAL Act. As there is some relevance to the nature of the proceedings as initiated under Sec. 84 of the BTAL Act, it would be appropriate to note the said provision, which reads thus:

"84. Summary eviction Any person unauthorizedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land -

a) the transfer (or acquisition) of which either by the act of parties or by the operation of law is invalid under the provisions of this Act. b) the management of which has been assumed under the said provisions, or

c) to the use and occupation of which he is not entitled under the said provisions and the said provisions do not provide for the eviction of such persons, may be summarily evicted by the Collector."

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer by an order dtd. 16/2/2005 directed the Tahsildar, Vasai to conduct a survey of the land and accordingly to take steps under Sec. 84 of BTAL Act as also granted stay to any further construction on the land. The said order is annexed at Page no. 40 of the Paper book.

6. On receipt of the said order from the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Tahsildar converted the enquiry, as ordered by the Sub-Divisional Officer into Tenancy Case No. 84/1/2005 and by order dtd. 13/7/2007 rejected the Sec. 84 application of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer challenging the said order passed by the Tahsildar in the Tenancy Appeal. After hearing the parties, the Sub-Divisional Officer by an order dtd. 28/12/2009 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The operative part of said order reads thus:

"ORDER 1. Appeal Application of the Applicant (Appellant) is allowed partly. 2. The impugned order of the Tahsildar is set aside. Action under Sec. 84-C of the Tenancy Act and against the unauthorized structure should be taken and report should be submitted to this office.

3. No Orders as to cost. 4. Decision should be intimated to al