Legal provisions under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act must be strictly adhered to according to the invoked remedy, preventing erroneous jurisdictional shifts.

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 dated 5 September, 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 dated 28 December, 2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in BD/Tenancy Appeal No. 24/2007 and the order dated 13 July, 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 Section 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 October, 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 May, 1994, second Agreement to Sale was entered between the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the earlier agreement dated 27 October, 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 Section 84 of the BTAL Act. As there is some relevance to the nature of the proceedings as initiated under Section 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 dated 16 February, 2005 directed the Tahsildar, Vasai to conduct a survey of the land and accordingly to take steps under Section 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 dated 13 July, 2007 rejected the Section 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 dated 28 December, 2009 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

The operative part of said order reads th