1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 814/2000 (Mohanlal Pivalal Jaiswal & others VERSUS Smt.Kamlabai Vasantrao Chauhan & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Deven Chauhan, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. T.D. Khade, counsel for the R-1 to 6. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : DECEMBER 16, 2008. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur in Revision Application No.Tenancy A- 282/1980 on 26.11.1999 remanding the matter to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Yavatmal for necessary enquiry and order. The impugned order of remand is challenged by the petitioner solely on the ground that the Agricultural Land Tribunal, Yavatmal had no jurisdiction to decide the question of validity of a will and a sale-deed executed in favour of the petitioner and, hence, the case could not be remanded to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Yavatmal. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though it has been held in the judgments reported in 1970 Mh.L.J. Note 29, 1959 Volume 61 BLR 419 and the unreported judgment in Writ Petition No.1523/1989 dated 16.01.1996 that in view of the provisions of Section 54 of the Tenancy Act, 1958, the statutory tenancy is not capable of being disposed of by a testamentary disposition, on a proper interpretation of the provisions of Section 54 of the Tenancy Act, 1958, the said judgment needs consideration. The learned counsel for the respondents have relied on the judgments reported in 1970 Mh.L.J. Note 29, 1959 Volume 61 BLR 419 and the unreported judgment in Writ Petition No.1523/1989 dated 16.01.1996 to submit that there was no reason for the Agricultural Lands Tribunal to decide the issue of validity of the will in view of the settled position of law and, therefore, the order of remand was just and proper. 3 I have perused the impugned order as also the judgments rendered by this Court in 1970 Mh.L.J. Note 29, 1959 Volume 61 BLR 419 and the unreported judgment in Writ Petition No.1523/1989 dated 16.01.1996. I do not, in the least, feel that the Division Bench judgment and the judgment rendered by the Single Bench of this Court, require reconsideration. In view of the settled position of law, it cannot be said that the Agricultural Lands Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the matter on remand, as there was no occasion for the Agricultural Lands Tribunal to decide the issue pertaining to the validity of the Will. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE