1 (WP3039/1995) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3039 OF 1995 Kamalakar Kaluram Mokal .... Petitioner. V/s Haroun Alim Abdul Rashid Yusuf .... Respondent. Mr. Rajiv L. Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. I.M. Vohra i/b Mr. Bipin Joshi for the Respondent. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 14th February, 2011 P.C.:- 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay was pleased to allow the revision application filed by the Respondent even without referring to the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. It is also submitted that concurrent finding of fact which was recorded by the Tahsildar and Sub- Divisional Officer were set aside only by taking into consideration the submissions of respondent’s counsel. 2 (WP3039/1995) 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the judgment and order of the MRT. In my view, the MRT has committed error of law which is apparent on the face of record. In paras 3 and 4 of his judgment, the learned Judge has taken into consideration submissions made by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent viz. Advocate Mr. G.R. Rege, though in para 3, it is recorded that Advocate Mr. Dinesh Adsule appears for the opponent and argued the case. His submissions are not even referred to. As such, therefore, in my view, the said order will have to be set aside since it does not take into consideration the submissions of the petitioner’s counsel. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent tried to justify the order passed by the MRT. It is submitted that the said order is passed on merits more particularly since the material in question was not considered by the Tahsildar and by the SDO. 4. In my view, the said submission of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent cannot be accepted. It was the duty of the MRT to have considered the submissions of both sides particularly when it has proceeded to set aside the concurrent finding of the Tahsildar and the SDO. 3 (WP3039/1995) 5. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. Matter is remanded to MRT. MRT is directed to consider the revision application filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within six months from today. 6. Petition is accordingly disposed off. (V.M. KANADE, J.)