V K Jadhav, J. - (1.)The petitioners are challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 13.3.1987 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in Revision application No. MRT-AS-I-12 of 1985.
(2.)Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:-
a) This pertains to the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 176/1, admeasuring 21 Acres and 15 Gunthas and potkharaba 14 gunthas, situated at village Savedi, Tq. and District Ahmednagar and the dispute relates to the land admeasuring 6 acres and 5 gunthas, out of the aforesaid land survey No. 176/1. The said land was originally owned and possessed by one Laxman Gangaram Dange and six others. Respondent No.3 Khandu Balaji Jare and one Bandu Sagaji Bhingardive were tenants on the said land in the village record prior to tillers day i.e. 1.4.1957.

b) Respondent No.3 Khandu Balaji Jare and Bandu Bhingardive vide tenancy application No. 20 of 1957 filed before learned Mamlatdar, Ahmednagar voluntarily surrendered the land from survey Nos. 175 and 176 in favour of original landlord viz. Laxman Gangaram Dange and others and accordingly an order came to be passed by the learned Mamlatdar regarding surrender. Pursuant to the said surrender, the tenants vacated the land and possession was handed over to the original landlords. The said surrender was verified and accepted by the Mamlatdar in accordance with the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the said Act"). Accordingly, mutation entry No. 1493 regarding surrender came to be certified by the Revenue authorities and even the names of the tenants were deleted and the names of landlords i.e. Laxman Gangaram Dange and six others were duly entered in the village record in respect of the said agricultural lands. The original landlords thereafter, cultivated the said land for some period and decided to alienate the said land.

c) On 29.2.1960, the original landlord Laxman Dange and others executed registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of land survey Nos. 175/1 and 176/1 admeasuring 9 acres, 12 gunthas and 14 acres, 8 gunthas, respectively.

d) In the year 1962, land survey No. 176/1 purchased by the petitioners was included within the municipal limits of Ahmednagar Municipal Council and numbered as final Plot Nos. 99 and 1000 of T.P. Scheme No.4. The petitioners from time-to-time sold out the part of the said land to respondent Nos. 5 to 16 and others and only 6 acres 5 gunthas of land remained in possession of the petitioners Chaban Phulari.

e) In the year 1979, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who happened to be nephews of the petitioner, filed an application before learned Tahsildar and A.L.T. Ahmednagar, alleging therein that the sale transaction effected by the petitioners be declared as invalid and possession of suit land be given to the elder brother of the petitioner viz. Baban Bhau Phulari, as manager of the joint family. The said application was numbered as T.N.C. Case No. 67 of 1979. The learned A.L.T. Ahmednagar, had recorded statements of respondent No.3 Khandu Balaji Jare and Dada Bandu Bhingardive. They have disclosed that the land survey Nos. 176 and 21 were taken by the landlords in possession for personal cultivation and therefore, they surrendered their tenancy. They have also stated in their respective statement that instead of personal cultivation of land, the landlord immediately sold the land and as such, they prayed for restoration of the possession.

f) By order dated 23.12.1982, the learned Additional Tahsildar, passed an order that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 if at all having share in the property may approach the Civil Court and further passed order that the possession of the petitioners over the agricultural land admeasuring 6 acres 5 gunthas out of the land survey No. 176 be withdrawn and the land should be handed over in favour of the tenants i.e. respondent No.3 Khandu Jare and Bandu Bhingardive in terms of provisions of Section 37 r.w. Section 39 of said Act.

g) Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Tahsildar, Ahmednagar, the petitioners preferred tenancy appeal No. 1 of 1983 and original respondent Nos. 1 and 2 preferred appeal No. 2 of 1983 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar division, Ahmednagar. By order dated 8.9.1984 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar division, Ahmednagar allowed appeal No.1 of 1983 and set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and dismissed the appeal No. 2 of 1983 filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

h) In the year 1985, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Bandu Bhingardive preferred revision application No. 12 of 1985 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune challenging the order dated 8.9.1984 passed by learned Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar. During pendency of said revision, Bandu Bhingardive came to be deleted from the array of applicants vide order dated 11.3.1987.

i) By order dated 13.3.1987 in Revision application MRT-AS-I-12 of 1985, learned Member of M.R.T. Pune has allowed the Revision application No. 12 of 1985 and also set aside the order dated 8.9.1984 passed by Sub- Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar and confirmed the order dated 23.12.1982 passed by the learned Tahsildar, Ahmednagar. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal has committed error of law by allowing the revision application of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and by restoring the order of the Tahsildar A.L.T. Nagar Division, Ahmednagar and the said error is apparent on the face of record. Learned counsel submits that Sections 37 and 39 of said Act are not at all attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the suit land was voluntarily surrendered by the original tenants. Learned counsel submits that in terms of provisions of Section 15 of the said Act, the tenant may terminate the tenancy in respect of his land at any time by surrendering his interest in favour of landlord, provided that such surrender shall be in writing and has to be verified before the Mamlatdar in the prescribed manner. After recording the verification, learned Mamlatdar has accepted the surrender being voluntary and unconditional and as such, subsequent proceedings for restoration, purportedly under Sections 37 and 39 of the said Act, are not maintainable. Learned counsel submits that the proceedings initiated after a lapse of 22 years and 7 months are not maintainable, as the same are not within limitation. The legal heirs of deceased tenants would not have any right to inherit the property of so called tenants under Section 37 of the said Act since name of one of the tenant being deleted from the array of applicants, before the Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that even in absence of any application for condonation of delay caused in filing Revision before the Tribunal, the said proceedings are also not maintainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submits that by invoking the provisions of Section 32 of the said Act, the tenants ipso facto cannot be entitled for ownership of disputed property. Learned Member of the Tribunal has exceeded the jurisdiction which has resulted into miscarriage of justice.