- (1.) Heard.
(2.) The applicants hereby seek review of the judgment and order dated 27.01.2020, dismissing writ petition No.9362 of 2014.
(3.) Facts: - Land bearing Gat No. 116 was the subject matter of the writ petition (for short "writ land"). Hari Vithoba Chaudhary(deceased) was owner of the writ land. He had mortgaged it to Dattatraya Kulkarni on 16.04.1941. Dattatraya inducted Chavadas Bhortakke as tenant in the writ land. Dattatraya passed away in February 1957, leaving behind his widow Durgabai. Respondent No.1 Papilabai (legal heir of late Hari Chaudhary) had filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 127 of 1977 for redemption of the mortgage. The suit was compromised. Respondent No.1 - Papilabai, thereafter preferred Tenancy Application No.117 of 1978 to the Tahsildar-cum Agricultural Lands Tribunal (A.L.T.) for declaration that Chavadas was not a tenant of the writ land. In the alternative, she had prayed for grant of certificate under Section 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short "B.T. and A.L. Act") in the event if Chavadas is declared to be tenant. On 28.06.1980, respondent No.1 was granted certificate under Section 88-C of the B.T. and A.L. Act. Legal representatives of Chavadas filed Tenancy Appeal No. 19 of 1980 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhusawal against the order granting certificate under Section 88-C. Respondent No.1 also preferred appeal against the order declining to grant declaration that Chavadas was not a tenant. The Sub Divisional Officer dismissed both the appeals by common judgment and order dated26.02.1985. The order granting 88-C certificate was confirmed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.3045 of 1985. Respondent No.1 had preferred Tenancy Revision Application No. 166 of 1985 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (M.R.T.) against the decision declining to grant declaratory relief. In 1991, the said revision was allowed by the M.R.T., setting aside the order of the Tahsildar-cum-A.L.T., and S.D.O., Bhusawal. The M.R.T. held that Chavadas was not a tenant of the writ land. Writ petition No. 184 of 1992 filed against the order passed by the M.R.T., was allowed by this Court. Civil Revision Application No.329 of 1995 was also preferred by the petitioners, which was allowed by this Court. Both the orders passed in Civil Revision Application No.329 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 184 of 1992, were unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.800-804 of 2000. ;