( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 653 OF 1991 Bashirkhan Babakha Pathan, R/o at and post Jamner, Taluka Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. PETITIONER VERSUS Nathulal Ratanlal Baser Since deceased, by L.Rs. 1. Nandlal Kanhayalal Baser, R/o Pathak Bag, Navi Peth, Pune. 2. Lalchand Kanhayalal Baser, R/o Kandile Sadan, Mulund (East), Bombay. 3. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Sanket S. Kulkarni, advocate holding for Mr. V.T. Choudhary, advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. N.N. Jadhav, AGP for the respondent No. 3. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 20th January, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges correctness and legality of judgement dated 06-12-1990 ( 2 ) rendered by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in exercise of revisional jurisdiction against concurrent judgements of Tenancy Tribunal and Sub-Divisional Officer whereby concurrent findings about status of petitioner as a tenant and his entitlement to purchase the tenanted land, came to be reversed. 2. Indisputably, land Gat No. 713 was owned by one Nathulal. He was absconding and was not heard of for many years. The respondents No. 1 and 2 are cousins of said Nathulal. They asserted that they are the legal representatives of Nathulal. Indisputably, the land in question was in possession of one Kalekhan s/o Chandkhan as a tenant on the Tillers’ Day i.e.01-04-1957. He died on 12-03-1962 and had left only a widow by name Smt. Umdabi as a legal heir. There was no issue left by him. Said Umdabi remained in possession of the land as a tenant during her lifetime. She died on 24-01-1973. The petitioner filed application dated 25-08-1980 under section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, “the BT&AL Act”), claiming to be legatee of deceased Smt. Umdabi under a will-deed dated ( 3 ) 04-01-1973 and thus, having acquired rights of tenancy and as such, to purchase the land. The Tenancy Tribunal conducted due enquiry. A notice was published in local newspaper with a view to inform original landlord i.e. Nathulal, but he was not traced out. The respondent No. 1’s Power of Attorney holder, namely, Kanhayalal appeared in the said proceedings, alleging that he was the legal heir of Nathulal. The Tenancy Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner acquired tenancy rights by virtue of will-deed executed by deceased Smt. Umdabi in his favour. The Tenancy Tribunal further held that he was entitled to file application for purchase of the land as required under section 32G of the BT&AL Act. The application was, therefore, allowed. The respondents No. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal (TNC/Appeal No.5/1986) before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chalisgaon. Their appeal came to be dismissed. The appellate authority confirmed the findings of the Tenancy Tribunal and held that purchase price fixed by the Tenancy Tribunal was proper and in accordance with the provisions of section 63-A (iii) of the BT&AL Act ( 4 ) read with section 32H thereof. This order rendered by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 28-12-1987 was challenged by the respondents No. 1 and 2 vide revision application No. 59/1988 which came to be allowed vide the impugned order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. 3. Heard Mr. Sanket Kulkarni, holding for Mr. V.T. Choudhary. None appeared for the respondents No. 1 and 2. The learned A.G.P. for the respondent No. 3 appeared and is heard. 4. Mr. Kulkarni would submit that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (M.R.T.) committed error while deciding the questions of facts which were not subject matter of the dispute. He would submit that scope of the revision is limited and unless the parameters shown in the sub- section (1) of section 76 of the BT&AL Act are satisfied, the M.R.T. cannot invoke jurisdiction. He would submit that thugh the issue regarding correctness of the Mutation Entry No. 103 was not required to be dealt with and such Mutation Entry was never challenged separately by the respondents No. 1 and 2, the M.R.T. ( 5 ) had no jurisdiction to upset the concurrent findings merely because it was suspected that the Mutation Entry No. 103 was suspicious. He argued that the M.R.T. could not have decided the correctness of the Mutation Entry No. 103 only because it was thought to be a suspicious one on the ground that notice could not have been served on Nathulal who was found absconding since more than twelve (12) years. Mr. Kulkarni further submits that the petitioner’s legal possession as a legatee of deceased Smt. Umdabi could not be doubled when both the Tenancy Tribunals had concurrently accepted his such contention. Hence, Mr. Kulkarni submits that the impugned judgement is perverse and bad in law. 5. At this juncture, it is pertinent to notice that the entire foundation of the impugned judgement is on two findings. First, the M.R.T. held that the petitioner failed to prove the will-deed purportedly executed by deceased Umdabi i.e. wife of the original tenant. Secondly, the M.R.T. came to the conclusion that the Mutation Entry No. 103 was suspicious because probably, notice could not have been served on Nathulal ( 6 ) who was absconding. So far as the status of the petitioner as a legatee of deceased respondent No. 1, it is important to note that the respondents No. 1 and 2 had filed a suit (R.C.S. No. 582/1987). They had sought declaration to the effect that the petitioner is not a tenant of the land in question and that the will-deed executed by deceased Smt. Umdabi is illegal, void and ineffective. The suit was pending when the present petition was admitted. Therefore, the then Hon’ble Judge (Halbe, J.) directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit within period of three months and submit a report. It appears that the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the petitioner came in possession of the land on basis of the will-deed dated 04-01-1973 and it was a valid, legal and proper bequeath in his favour. The respondents No. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal against the findings of the Civil Court. The appeal also came to be dismissed. These facts are clear from report received from the Adhoc District Judge, Jalgaon by fax letter dated 18-01-2010 (marked “X”). 6. The observation of the M.R.T. that the ( 7 ) execution of the will-deed was not proved by the petitioner is, therefore, erroneous and liable to be quashed. It may be mentioned here that the M.R.T. was cognizant of the fact that the legality and validity of the will-deed was challenged by the respondents No. 1 and 2 by filing Civil Suit No. 582/1987. The M.R.T. could have awaited the findings of the Civil Court on the issue of legality of the will-deed. The M.R.T. had no business to give finding on civil rights of the petitioner which stem from the will-deed. The M.R.T. transgressed the jurisdictional limits by giving the finding on the issue of will-deed. The petitioner was not required to prove the will-deed before the M.R.T. when the issue was already pending before the Civil Court. It was only a summary enquiry about his status which the M.R.T. could have considered if it was so necessary. 7. As stated before, the Mutation Entry No. 103 was never challenged by the respondents No. 1 and 2 through any separate proceedings. The M.R.T. had no business to consider such issue, particularly when there ( 8 ) were concurrent findings rendered by the Tenancy Tribunal. In “Gulabrao Sahebrao Shinde v. Sayaji Shankar Shinde” 2004 (1) Mh.L.J. 873, this Court held that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal cannot discuss evidence on record and come to its own conclusion by setting aside concurrent orders holding person to be tenant. The fact situation in the given case is similar to the facts obtained herein. The M.R.T. had adverted to 7/12 extracts and discussed the evidence while deciding the tenancy issue in the given case. This Court held that such exercise was impermissible in view of limited scope of revision under section 76 of the BT&AL Act. It is well settled that revisional jurisdiction is available in limited area and that is more so when the special enactment itself restricts the parameters of the revisional jurisdiction. Considering these aspects, it will have to be said that the M.R.T. committed patent error while holding that the Mutation Entry No. 103 was disposed and as such, the petitioner could not have acquired tenancy rights. ( 9 ) 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned judgement and order rendered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal cannot be maintained. Hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned judgement and order is set aside. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp653-91