: 1 : SD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.954 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.954 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.954 OF 2009 Govind Dhondu Jadhav ... Petitioner V/s. Dhondu Sitaram Jadhav & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.Rakesh Bhatkar for the Petitioner. Mr.S.A. Mudbidri for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2009. DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2009. DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The petitioner has approached this Court against the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 30th September, 2008. By this order, the Tenancy Revision No.1087-B-2003 has been dismissed and the Judgment of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dapoli remanding the matter to the Tahsildar has been confirmed. Thus, the proceedings are now pending before the Tahsildar. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the application for claiming tenancy has been filed after 36 years and therefore the Tahsildar initially ought not to have granted the claim of the respondents. He submits that this aspect has not been taken into consideration by any of the Authorities below including the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and therefore the Petition should be : 2 : admitted. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. In my opinion, there is no error committed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in confirming the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dapoli. However, the Tahsildar while considering the rights of the parties in Tenancy Case being TCP No.226 dated 20th February, 1966 shall also consider the question of delay. 3. All contentions of the parties are kept open. 4. Merely because the Tahsildar has been directed to decide the issue of delay, it does not necessarily mean that the delay has to be condoned. The respondents are at liberty to raise the contention that the petitioner, having participated in the first remand, is precluded from raising the issue regarding delay. The Tahsildar will consider both these contentions while deciding the issue regarding delay. 5. The Petition is disposed of. .....