S. T. DESAI, N. M. MIABHOY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of 5 acres and 22 gunthas of agricultural land which is had let out to opponent No. 2 On 26/12/1956 he gave notice to he tenant to quit the land on the ground that he required the same for his bonafide personal cultivation. Then he filed an application under section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 before the Mamlatdar Dhari Taluka. On 18/05/1957 he stated before the Tenancy Aval Karkun that he had compromised the dispute relating to the land with the opponent-tenant and did not intend to proceed with the tenancy case. The Tenancy Aval Karkun passed an order on that application which had the effect of rejection of the application for possession made by the petitioner. On the same day i. e. 18/05/1957 the opponent filed and application stating that he intended to surrender to the landlord the land held by him. On 29/05/1957 the Tenancy Aval Karkun passed an order allowing the surrender of the land in favour of the petitioner. ( 2 ) ON 30/04/1958 the Deputy Collector Amreli in the purported exercise of his powers under section 76-A of the Act issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why the order of the Tenancy Aval Karkun should not be set aside as the same contravened the provisions of section 32 of the Act. In the present petition the petitioner has raised some other contentions but in the view we take of the matter or examine those contentions. The Deputy Collector set aside the order dated 29/05/1957 passed by the Tenancy Aval Karkun on the ground that the surrender had been made after 1/04/1957 which was the `tillers Day The petitioner carried the matter in revision and in revision the Revenue Tribunal confirmed the decision of the Deputy Collector on this point on the same ground and the petitioner has come to this Court on this petition. ( 3 ) SECTION 76-A was inserted in the Act by Bombay Act XXXVIII of 1957 and conferred revisional powers on the Collector It is in the following terms:-"where no appeal has been filed within the period provided for it the Collector may suo motu or on a reference made in this behalf by the Divisional Officer or the State Government at any time (a) call for the record of any inquiry or the proceeding of any Mamlatdar or Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by and as to the regularity of the proceeding of such Mamlatdar or Tribunal as the case may be and (b) pass such order thereon as he deems fit provided that (no such record shall be called for after the expiry of one year from the date of such order and) no order of such Mamlatdar or Tribunal shall be modified annulled or reversed unless opportunity has been given to be interested parties to appear and be heard. " ( 4 ) IT has been urged before us by Mr. J. L. Hathi who appears for the petitioner that the revisional powers conferred on the Collector by section 76-A could not be exercised retrospectively so as to disturb and defeat rights which were already vested in the petitioner. Now this point was not taken before the Tribunal and presumably it has been raised on this petition in view of the a decision of the High Court of Bombay to which we will presently turn. We have before us for hearing to day a number of Special Civil Applications in some of which this point has been taken and in some this point has not been pleaded. Ordinarily we would not allow the petitioner to raise a point before us which is not expressly taken in the petition. But having regard to the nature of it and since it goes to the very jurisdiction of the Collector to pass an order in the exercise of his revisional powers we have allowed the point to be urged before us. At the instance of the parties we have not insisted on a formal amendment of the petition otherwise we might have done so. ( 5 ) THE identical question came up for consideration before the learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay and Mr. At the instance of the parties we have not insisted on a formal amendment of the petition otherwise we might have done so. ( 5 ) THE identical question came up for consideration before the learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay and Mr. Justice V. S. Desai in Phirosh Sarosh Kothawalla vs. State of Bombay (1959) 61 Bombay Law Reporter 1959 It was held in that case that orders made by a Mamlatdar or Tribunal before the coming into force of section 76-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 cannot be revised under that section. Now admittedly the order of the Tenancy Aval Karkun was made on 19/05/1957 and the section come into operation on 28/09/1957. We agree with the view taken by the learned Judges and are of the opinion that the Collector was not entitled to pass the the order in the exercise of his revisional powers. The order of the Mamlatdar had already become final when the Deputy Collector acted under section 76-A. ( 6 ) MR. A. H. Thakkar learned Advocate for opponent No. 2 the tenant has been unable to advance any argument before us on this question of operation of section 76-A but he has tried to support the decision of the Revenue Tribunal on two other grounds. It is urged that the order passed by the Mamlatdar was not a final order at all. It is difficult to see how it can be said that the order passed by the Mamlatdar was one which was not final. Mr. Thakkar has relied on last paragraph of the order which is as under:-"tenancy right of Shri Madhu Naran in respect of survey number 80 admeasuring 5 acres 22 gunthas of Ditla is ordered to be terminated under section 15 of the B. T. and A. L. Act 1948 and the opponent Shri Jayantilal Jeram is allowed to take possession of the suit and for personal cultivation. "there is no substance in the contention and it must be negatived. ( 7 ) IT is next urged that the surrender application was made on 18/05/1957 which was after 1/04/1957 the Tillers Day. The tenant became an owner of the land on 1/04/1957 and therefore any purported surrender by him on 18/05/1957 of his tenancy rights would be invalid and ineffective. ( 7 ) IT is next urged that the surrender application was made on 18/05/1957 which was after 1/04/1957 the Tillers Day. The tenant became an owner of the land on 1/04/1957 and therefore any purported surrender by him on 18/05/1957 of his tenancy rights would be invalid and ineffective. Now this argument ignores the proviso to section 32 (1) which lays down that if an application made by the landlord under sec. 29 for obtaining possession of the land has been rejected under the provisions of the Act tenant is to be deemed to have purchased the land on the date on which the final order of rejection is passed. In any such case the date on which the final order of rejection is passed becomes `the postponed date of the `tillers Day. Therefore the present contention of Mr. Thakkar must be negatived. ( 8 ) IN the result the petition succeeds and will be allowed. Rule will be made absolute. Rule made absolute.