1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2150 OF 2009 Om Jagdish Behl .. Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.L.H.Patil for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Patne A.G.P. for respondent no.1. Mr.S.A.Mudbidri for respondent no.2. Coram : D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.10.2008 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, in review application No.17 of 1996 in revision application application No.174 of 1992. 3. These proceedings arise from a suo motu action taken by the Tahsildar, cancelling a mutation entry effected in favour of the petitioner. The mutation entry was effected on the basis of a sale deed by which the petitioner purchased an agricultural land (for short “the suit property”). The mutation entry was cancelled holding that the petitioner purchased the suit land without being an agriculturist. 4. The order of Tahsildar was carried in appeal being tenancy 2 appeal No.13 of 1985. The appeal was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Panvel Division, Panvel vide his judgment and order dated 20.5.1988. That order was challenged in a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, being Revision Application No.174 of 1992. The revision was also dismissed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 27.4.1995. The order passed in the revision was thereafter carried in writ petition No.174 of 1996 before this court. This court, while rejecting the writ petition against the judgment and order dated 27.4.1995 passed in revision application No.174 of 1992, passed the following order: “In the present matter I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. Hence W.P. Is rejected. However Ld.Adv. For the petitioner wants to move the M.R.T. In Review. It is not for this Court to grant liberty to move for Review. If the petitioner is so advised the Petitioner may move M.R.T. office is directed to return R. & Ps. to M.R.T. forthwith.” 4. Thereafter the petitioner filed a review application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Initially the review application was rejected as not maintainable by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 18th October, 1996. Once again the petitioner challenged that order in writ petition 3 No.4052 of 1997 before this court. That writ petition was, allowed vide order dated 29.1.2006 and the tribunal was directed to decide the review application on merits. The tribunal thereafter considered the review application on merits and dismissed the same vide judgment and order dated 15.10.2008. This judgment of the Tribunal is impugned in the present writ petition. 5. It is against this backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. At the outset he invited my attention to the order dated 24.10.1991 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in revision application No.5 of 1987 between the petitioner and some other party in respect of different property wherein, according to the petitioner, he was held to be an agriculturist. In view of the judgment dated 24.10.1991, Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the observations made by the Tribunal in these proceedings have a binding effect and, therefore, in the present proceedings the Tribunal ought not to have taken different view holding that the petitioner is not an agriculturist. I have perused all the orders to which my attention was specifically invited to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the judgment and order dated 27.4.1995 passed by the Tribunal in revision application No.174 of 1992 and the judgment and order dated 15.10.2008 passed on the review application No.17 of 1996, it is clear that 4 the judgment and order on which the petitioner is heavily relying upon i.e. judgment dated 24.10.1991 was relied upon by the petitioner on both the occasions and the Tribunal in the revision as well as in the review considered the said judgment and held that the petitioner is not an agriculturist. It cannot be overlooked that the order dated 27.4.1995 passed in revision No.174 of 1992 was challenged before this court in writ petition No.174 of 1996 and that writ petition was rejected. The order passed in the revision No.174 of 1992 dated 27.4.1995 attained finality. The petitioner admittedly did not carry that order further and chose to file review application. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in the review application. I find that the learned Member of the tribunal has considered the contentions of the petitioner, seeking review, in proper perspective and for the reasons recorded in paragraph 6 to 9 has rightly dismissed the same. In short the Tribunal held that no case for review was made out by the petitioner. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner could not and did not point out any error of law committed by the tribunal while disposing of the review application. In the circumstances I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (D. B. Bhosale, J)