H.W.DHABE, J. - (1.) This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short the Tenancy Act). Briefly the facts are that the petitioner claimed to be a tenant of 2 acres and 16 gs. of land from fields No. 34/2 area 7 acres of Village Karajgaon, Tahsil Warud, District Amravati. When the original landlord Sundarlalji learnt in 1960-61 that the petitioner claimed to be the tenant of the suit land, he initiated proceedings under section 38(2) read with section 36 of the Tenancy Act claiming the land for personal cultivation. However, the said Sunderlalji lost in these proceedings because the land was bagait land for which notice under section 58 of the Tenancy Act was necessary. The petitioner thereafter commenced proceedings for purchase of the suit lane. His application was rejected throughout by all the Tenancy Courts, and ultimately by this court also holding that the petitioner was not the tenant of the suit land and had, therefore, no right to purchase the same. The above order was passed by this Court on 29-4-1980. According to the respondents 5 to 10, who are the legal representatives of the original landlord Sundarlalji, although the copy was applied for on 15-5-1980, the same was delivered to them on 1-10-1982.
(2.) After the receipt of the certified copy of the order of this Court the respondents 5 to 10 filed an application for possession of the suit land under section 36(2) of the Tenancy Act. The said case was registered as Revenue Case No. 102/59/10 F/61-62/102/59(8)(11)/60-61. On 21-3-1983. the petitioner was noticed. However, on 1-7-1983, as per the order sheet in the above case, the petitioner was absent and was, therefore, proceeded ex parte. The learned Additional Tahsildar directed issue of warrant of possession on the same date pursuant to which it appears that the respondents 5 to 10 were placed in possession of the suit land. According to the petitioner, on the earlier date i.e. 23-5-1983 no date was given by the learned Additional Tahsildar although the order sheet of that date shows that the case was fixed on 1-7-1983. It is this order dated 1-7-1983 passed by the learned Additional Tahsildar, directing issue of warrant of possession of the suit land which is challenged in the instant writ petition by the petitioner.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before me that part from his contention that the date 1-7-1983 was fraudulently and surreptitiously entered behind the back of the petitioner in the order sheet dated 23-5-1983, the impugned order dated 1-7-1983 is per se without jurisdiction. It is, however, urged on behalf of the respondents 5 to 10 that the instant petition cannot be entertained because the petitioner had adequate remedy by way of an appeal and thereafter a revision against the order passed by the learned Additional Tahsildar under section 36(2). Another contention raised on behalf of the respondents 5 to 10 is that if the possession was obtained by the respondents 5 to 10 in contravention of section 36(2), it was open to the petitioner to file an application under section 36(1) of the Tenancy Act for restoration of possession.;