SSK/53 1 WP.5213.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5213 OF 2010 with WRIT PETITION NO.9585 OF 2010 Mrs. Lourdes Xavier Henriques ....Petitioner Versus Mr. Arnold Paul D’Souza(deceased) & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. V. A. Sugdare, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Nakhwa i/b. M/s. Shroff & Co., Advocate for respondent no.3. Mr. Vasant Dhawan, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 to 10. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 21st MARCH, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr.Sugdare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nakhwa, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Mr. Dhawan, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 10. 2. Both the writ petitions arise out of a common order dated 23rd July, 2009 passed by the President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision Nos.5/B/2008 and 38/B/2008. The Revision No.5/B/2008 was filed by the respondent nos.4 to 10 and the Revision No.38/B/2008 was filed by the respondent no.3. SSK/53 2 WP.5213.10 3. The proceedings arise out of Section 32G of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. The Tahsildar fixed the purchase price in favour of the present petitioner. The fixation of the purchase price was challenged by the respondent no.3-Landlord as well as respondent nos. 4 to 10, the persons in occupation of the suit land by filing two separate appeals. Both the appeals were dismissed. Therefore, as stated above two separate revisions came to be filed. Both the revisions were decided ex-parte by a common order which is being impugned in the present petition. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she was not served with the notice of the above revisions, and therefore, could not remain present. Mr. Nakhwa and Mr. Dhawan, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4 to 10 respectively, on the contrary, submitted that the notice of Revision No. 5/B/2008 was sent by RPAD to the petitioner. However, same was returned back with the postal remark “Not Claimed”. The respondents, fairly admitted that notice of Revision No.38/B/2008 was never sent to the petitioner. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, both Mr. Nakwa and Mr. Dhawan learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents agree for remanding back the matters to MRT for hearing afresh. In view of the concession given by the respondents, both the writ petition are conveniently disposed of by passing following common order: SSK/53 3 WP.5213.10 1. The impugned order dated 23rd July, 2009 passed by the President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai in Revision Nos.5/B/2008 and 38/B/2008 is quashed and set-aside. 2. The matters are remanded back to MRT for disposal afresh on merits after hearing both the parties. 3. The MRT shall endeavour to dispose of both the revisions as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents shall move the MRT for expeditious hearing in terms of the above order as soon as the post of President/Member is filled by the Government. 5. Record and proceeding be sent back to the MRT. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner waives service of the both the revisions pending before the MRT. In the light of the above order, both the writ petitions are disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.)