-: 1 :- wp - 5725/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5725 OF 2010 Dattatraya K. Joshi & Ors. ..Petitioners. Versus Ananda G. Gaikwad & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Prathamesh B. Bhargude for the petitioners. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : July 27, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By the order impugned, Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal [for short “MRT”] remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar with direction to make fresh enquiry in the matter and pass orders as per law. The respondents – tenants filed application under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. This application was granted. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the SDO, which was allowed against which the respondent–tenants approached MRT. The MRT passed the order impugned in this petition. 3. In the year 1958, the Petitioners-landlord obtained certificate under section 88-C of the BT&AL Act and thereafter by initiating the srp -: 2 :- wp - 5725/10 proceedings under section 33-B the BT&AL Act, obtained possession of half portion of the land in the year 1962. Despite this position, the respondents filed application under section 32-G of the BT&AL Act in respect of the entire land and Tehsildar fixed the purchase price in respect of the entire land. This order is rightly set aside by the SDO in appeal. However, the SDO proceeded on a wrong footing that the land was surrendered by the tenants to the petitioner-landlord. In these circumstances, MRT quashed the orders passed by both the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar. I find no error in the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have already obtained possession of half portion of the land in a proceeding under section 33-B of the BT&AL Act, and therefore matter need not be remanded back to the Tehsildar as far as half portion of the said land, in relation to which the petitioner has obtained certificate, is concerned. The MRT has taken note of this aspect in its order. The operative part of the impugned order of MRT shows that the Tehsildar is directed to decide the proceeding afresh in the light of the observations made in the order. In these circumstances, I find no prejudice to the petitioners if the matter is remanded back to the Tehsildar. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. In -: 3 :- wp - 5725/10 the circumstances, writ petition is dismissed. 5. However, learned Tehsildar is directed to decide the proceedings as expeditiously as possible. (R.V. MORE, J.)