Once tenancy rights are rejected, fixation of purchase price under Section 32G is impermissible, and any contrary findings by the MRT exceed its jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

GAURI GODSE, J.

1. This petition is filed by the owners of the land to challenge the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ('MRT') allowing revision application filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 10 ('respondents') challenging the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer ('SDO') in a suo moto revision initiated under Section 76A of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('Tenancy Act'). The respondents are heirs and legal representatives of Ganpat Mhatre, claiming to have tenancy rights in the land owned by the petitioners. Learned SDO by exercising powers under Section 76A of the Tenancy Act, had set aside orders passed under Section 32G to fix the purchase price in favour of the respondents.

FACTS IN BRIEF:

2. Respondents claim tenancy rights in petitioners' land total admeasuring 115-56-00 H-R-P. Respondents had filed Tenancy Case No. 2142 on 2nd May 1989 for declaration of tenancy rights, under section 70(b) of the Tenancy Act, claiming tenancy rights in respect of 30 Acres out of the aforesaid land. According to the respondents, Ganpat Mhatre was the original tenant who expired on 15th October 1958. The application for a declaration of tenancy rights was filed by respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5, claiming tenancy rights being heirs and legal representatives of Ganpat. On 28th November 1991, learned Tahasildar allowed the application, declaring Ganpat Mhatre as a tenant as prayed. The said declaration was challenged by the petitioners before the SDO by filing an Appeal No. 9 of 1992. The said Appeal was allowed on 31st January 1994, and the declaration in favour of Ganpat Mhatre was set aside.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondents filed Revision Application No. 193 of 1994 before the MRT. The MRT had allowed the said revision application on 4th April 1995 and remanded the matter to the SDO for a fresh hearing. After remand, the learned SDO, by order dated 27th May 1996, allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 28th November 1991, passed in favour of the respondents under Section 70(b).

4. In the meantime, 32G proceedings were initiated by the respondents, and according to the respondents, an order was passed on 29th March 1996 in 32G proceedings bearing Tenancy/SR/No. 2623. The respondents claimed the 32G order fixing purchase price was for the entire land. According to the petitioners, they were served with Form No. 6, intimating that the purchase price has been fixed with regard to the whole of the land in favour of the respondents and according to the petitioners they were served with two sets of Form No. 6. Form No. 6 dated 18th April 1996 [Exhibit-J (colly)] indicated that the purchase price was fixed for an area of 30 Acres out of the entire land, by order dated 18th April 1996 in Tenancy Case No. 2623. Another Form No. 6 dated 28th March 1996 [Exhibit-J(colly)] indicated that the purchase price was fixed for the entire land by order dated 12th April 1996 in Tenancy Case No. 2683.

5. Hence, the petitioners filed a complaint dated 19th June 1996 before the learned SDO. The petitioners contended that two separate orders were prepared for fixing the purchase price based on forged documents, and hence, they requested to initiate a necessary inquiry. Thereafter, the learned SDO initiated suo moto revision under Section 76A. After making necessary inquiry both the orders purportedly passed under Section 32G in favour of the respondents were set aside by the SDO. Since the said order was passed without hearing the respondents, they preferred Revision Application No. 48 of 1997 before the MRT. By the impugned order, MRT allowed the revision application, and the order dated 30th November 1996 passed by the SDO is set aside. By the impugned order, the MRT has restored the ALT's order under Section 32G. Hence, the owners of the land filed the present petition.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that fraud had been committed