1958 Bombay Act 99 of 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The appeals filed by the respondent against the Order of the tahsildar were dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer.
The Orders made by the Revenue Courts in that reference were companysequently held to be without jurisdiction and as such quashed.
On November 13, 1957 the respondent filed a suit against the appellant for possession of the land companyprised in field Nos.
In that list, the appellant was shown as a tenant of the land in dispute.
The appellant took a plea in that suit that he was a tenant of the land in dispute under Section 6 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Vidharbha Region Act.
The respondent then took the matter in revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
243 of 1986, which arose out of reference made under Section 125 of the Act, that numberreference was maintainable under Section 125 of the Act, as the suit in the companyrse of which that reference was made had been filed in 1957 long before the companying into force of the Act.
It was observed that the various disputed questions would have to be decided by the civil Court itself.
The Tribunal dismissed both the revisions.
A prayer was also made by the appellant that the question of his tenancy be referred to the revenue Court.
Petition No.
It was urged on behalf of the respondent in petition No.
A list of the tenants occupying the various lands was also published under Section 8 of the Act.
244 of 1966, which related to the Orders made by the revenue authorities in objections filed by the respondent to the list of tenants published under Section 8 of the Act was withdrawn by the respondent at the time, of hearing before the High Court.
The civil Court accordingly made a reference under Section 125 of the Act to the tahsildar for the decision of the question as to whether the appellant had acquired the status of a tenant under Section 2 32 read with Section 6 of the Act.
The High Court accepted this companytention and held that the reference under Section 125 of the Act was number companypetent.
The Tehsildar went into the question as to whether the appellant was a tenant of the land in dispute both in the reference made to him under Section 125 of the Act as well as in the objections filed by the respondent to the inclusion of the appellants name in the list published under Section 8 of the Act.
The respondent thereafter filed two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court.
17, 18, 19, 22 and 24 situated in village Sawangi in district Yeotmal, on the allegation that the appellant had taken forcible pos session of that land in the year 1952.
1 hereinafter referred to as the respondent .
In both the proceedings, the Tehsildar held that the appellant was a tenant of the land in dispute under Section 2 32 read with Section 6 of the Act.
R. Khanna, J. This judgment would dispose of two Civil Appeals Nos.
1949 and 1950 of 1968 which have been filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court disposing of two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by respondent No.
