JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---Ms. Smita Mane for the petitioner. The respondent though has been served, is absent. None present for him. Therefore, he has been treated ex parte and the present writ petition is being heard and decided finally as it pertains to the year 1988. 2. The petitioner Kalu Dhondi Jadhav resident of Manmad, District Nasik is claiming to be the landlord of Gat No. 21 (Survey No. 9) admeasuring about 18 acres and 4 gunthas, Pot Kharaba 1 acres and 19 gunthas, total area 19 acres, and 23 ares situated in village Nanhave, Taluka Chandwad, District Nasik. The respondent Pandharinath Bhiwa Gunjal is claiming to be tenant of it and claims that his father was the tenant of the said land and he happens to be in possession of the said land since 1948-49 and was cultivating the said land from the year 1974. It appears from the record that proceedings were initiated in view of section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Tenancy Act" for convenience). The record also shows that two suits were filed in the Civil Court in respect of the said land. The record further shows that the possession was handed over by the Civil Court through bailiff by executing the decree which was passed in favour of the present petitioner. This is the second round of the litigation so far as the revenue courts are concerned. 3. The first judgment and order was dealt with by the member of M.R.T. when he decided tenancy proceedings bearing No. T.E.N. A 22 of 1983. The said proceeding was about section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy Act which was initiated at the instance of the respondent Pandharinath Bhiwa Gunjal bearing Tenancy Case No. 3/81 wherein Kalu Dhondi Jadhav, the present petitioner, did not participate in the said proceedings though he was served and resultantly Tahsildar declared Pandharinath Bhiwa Gunjal to be the lawful tenant of land bearing Survey No. 9 situated at Mouze Nhanave in Taluka Chandwad. Kalu Dhondi Jadhav preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 10/82 against the said judgment and order which was dismissed by Assistant Collector, Niphad and on account of that the member was required to hear and decide the revision petition which he decided by the order which has been mentioned just now. Kalu Dhondi Jadhav preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 10/82 against the said judgment and order which was dismissed by Assistant Collector, Niphad and on account of that the member was required to hear and decide the revision petition which he decided by the order which has been mentioned just now. Before the said member, both the Counsel appearing for Kalu Dhondi Jadhav and Pandharinath Bhiwa Gunjal passed a praecipe for agreeing to a remand order on condition that Kalu Dhondi Jadhav should pay Rs. 100/- as costs and should undertake to appear before the said Tahsildar on 13-2-1981 or any other date to be fixed by the Tahsildar for hearing. In that context, the member set aside the orders passed by the A.L.T. and Tahsildar, Chandwad and Assistant Collector, Niphad and remanded the matter back to Tahsildar, Chandwad for disposal according to law. 4. By virtue of this order, the second round started. On 7-6-1984 Kalu Dhondi Jadhav submitted an application before the Tahsildar and A.L.T., Chandwad requesting him to issue summonses to the witnesses whom he wanted to examine. There were 3-4 witnesses. Summons were issued and next date was fixed to be 14-6-1984. On the said date the Tahsildar and A.L.T., Chandwad observed that the witnesses did not turn up to his Court for giving evidence in support of the case of Kalu Dhondi Jadhav and, therefore, he closed his right of adducing the evidence and passed the judgment and order against him declaring the respondent Pandharinath Bhiwa Gunjal to be the lawful tenant of the said land. The present petitioner filed an appeal against it which was dismissed by S.D.O. holding that the present petitioner did not adduce the evidence though opportunity was given to him. By observing so, he dismissed the contention raised by the present petitioner that no opportunity was given to him for adducing evidence in support of his case. S.D.O. held that the evidence on record was sufficient enough to establish that Pandharinath Bhiwa Gunjal was the lawful tenant of the said land. The same view was taken by M.R.T. and the judgment and order passed by Tahsildar and A.L.T., Chandwad was confirmed. 5. These judgments are being assailed by this petition mainly on the ground that no sufficient opportunity was given to the present petitioner to adduce the evidence. Ms. The same view was taken by M.R.T. and the judgment and order passed by Tahsildar and A.L.T., Chandwad was confirmed. 5. These judgments are being assailed by this petition mainly on the ground that no sufficient opportunity was given to the present petitioner to adduce the evidence. Ms. Smita Mane appearing for the petitioner demonstrated that there is nothing on record to show that the summonses issued by the Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Chandwad were ever served on the witnesses. She submitted that the summonses could not have been served during such a short span of time and, therefore, in all probabilities, the witnesses did not get the summons from the Court and, therefore, they did not come to Court. She further submitted that it was the duty of the Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Chandwad to give another opportunity to the petitioner by issuing fresh summonses and making them returnable by giving sufficient time for effecting the service of those summonses on those witnesses. She submitted that on the basis of record, the opportunity of adducing the evidence has been denied to the present petitioner and the judgment and order passed by member of M.R.T. in T.E.N. A 22 of 1983 has not been followed by Mamlatdar and A.L.T. Chandwad. 6. Her submissions have not been challenged by the respondent because the respondent did not participate in the hearing though this matter has been shown on the Board as listed for final hearing. 7. By itself, the record shows that after issuing the summonses the date of hearing was fixed after time of only 7 days. Reasonably it was not possible for the executing authority to serve those summons on such witnesses. The Tahsildar and A.L.T. Chandwad should have waited for return of those summonses either served or un-served and should have taken a note of it in the record. He should have endorsed his satisfaction that the summonses were served on witnesses and in spite of service of the summonses on them, the witnesses did not appear before the Court. Even then he should have given second opportunity to the present petitioner to get those witnesses summoned for giving evidence in the Court because the Tahsildar and A.L.T. was duty bound to make the enquiry in accordance with law and Rules of natural justice. 8. Even then he should have given second opportunity to the present petitioner to get those witnesses summoned for giving evidence in the Court because the Tahsildar and A.L.T. was duty bound to make the enquiry in accordance with law and Rules of natural justice. 8. When an enquiry is to be held by a Court or authority, it has to be held in proper, reasonable way and proper attention is to be given to reasonableness and rules of natural justice. While making those summonses returnable the said Court or authority should be careful enough to see that the executing agency gets sufficient time for serving the summonses on those witnesses whom the party wants to examine before the Court or before the authority. Otherwise, it would be nothing but a farce. It is shocking that the summonses have been issued, opportunity of adducing the evidence has been given but virtually the doors were closed by fixing the next date after a couple of days or few days. It is not in any way administration of justice. Such practice needs to be totally deprecated. 9. It apparently also indicates that the Tahsildar and A.L.T., Chandwad was not interested in conducting the enquiry in its spirit. Had that been so, he would not have fixed the next date of hearing i.e. the date of recording the evidence of those witnesses after only 7 days. He was totally not attentive to the facts that the witnesses were coming from villages and for serving the summonses on them the executing agency was required to go to such remote villages and, therefore, sufficient time was necessary. He was also not attentive to the fact that on account of the residents in village, those witnesses could have been prevented from attending the Court within a reasonable time. All these factors have not been considered by Tahsildar and A.L.T. Chandwad and, therefore, he landed in error of passing the judgment and order which was unfortunately confirmed by the Assistant Collector without looking to the important facet of this matter. The Assistant Collector, Niphad also failed in the same way. He also did not give proper attention to the fact that the date of recording the evidence of those witnesses was fixed after only 7 days. The Assistant Collector, Niphad also failed in the same way. He also did not give proper attention to the fact that the date of recording the evidence of those witnesses was fixed after only 7 days. He also failed to note that there was no record available for the purposes of coming to the conclusion that summonses were ever served on those witnesses. He also failed to understand that the Tahsildar and A.L.T., Chandwad should have given second opportunity to the present petitioner for getting the summons for examining those witnesses in support of his case. 10. The same sort of mistakes were repeated by member of M.R.T. He also without giving proper attention to this important aspect of the matter, confirmed the judgments and orders passed by Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Chinchwad and Assistant Collector, Niphad. 11. After careful perusal of this record, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is failure of justice in the present case because unfortunately the courts below and the Tribunal were not careful enough in looking to the appellant's case depicted by record. Unfortunately, the courts below and the Tribunal failed to understand that there was failure of justice and the opportunity was denied to the present petitioner for adducing the evidence in support of his case. He was required to proceed without the evidence in his case. The two courts below and the Tribunal failed in exercising the jurisdiction which vested in them and that has caused the total failure of justice. 12. For the purposes of maintaining the course of administration of justice non-polluted and flawless, this Court sets aside the judgments which have been assailed by the petitioner i.e. the judgment of Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Chandwad, the judgment passed by Assistant Collector, Niphad and the judgment and order which has been passed by member of M.R.T., by issuing a writ of certiorari in favour of the petitioner. By setting aside all those judgments, Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Chandwad is hereby directed to issue fresh notice to the witnesses of the petitioner as indicated by his application which was dealt with by the said Court on 14-7-1984. Sufficient time should be given for executing agency to serve the summonses on those witnesses. Sufficient time should be given to those witnesses to come to the Court. Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Chandwad should record his finding whether summonses are served properly and legally or not. Sufficient time should be given for executing agency to serve the summonses on those witnesses. Sufficient time should be given to those witnesses to come to the Court. Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Chandwad should record his finding whether summonses are served properly and legally or not. He is not prevented from giving second opportunity to the present petitioner if his first attempt to get the witnesses served and bring them before the Court fails. The said Court is hereby directed to issue the summonses and it should not ask the petitioner to bring the witnesses to the Court. 13. This writ petition stands allowed with costs. The judgments passed by Mamlatdar and A.L.T. Chandwad, the Assistant Collector, Niphad and the Member of M.R.T., are set aside. The Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Chandwad should decide the said proceedings positively within ten weeks, from the date of receiving the record and proceeds. Record and proceedings be dispatched to that Court as early as possible. The parties to remain present before that Court on 10-1-2002. 14. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this judgment duly authenticated by the Private Secretary of this Court. 15. Certified copy expedited. Writ petition allowed. -----