JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---The petitioner is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Member of the M.R.T. in the matter of MRT-P-X-11/83 (TNC.B. 299/83), Pune dated 11-8-1987 whereby the learned Member of M.R.T. had directed the A.L.T. and Tahsildar to hold the enquiry in respect of Southern half portion of Gat No. 700/1-A+ 3-A area 2 acres and 6 gunthas assessed at Re. 1 and 4 annas situated at Supe, Taluka Baramati, District Pune. 2. The controversy arose when the A.L.T. and Tahsildar Baramati in Case No. 32-P(2)(c) Sale/162 granted the certificate in view of provisions of section 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for convenience) for the entire land when the said land was put to auction none came forward except the present petitioner who paid the price of Rs. 75/- as purchase price of the said land. After the said certificate was granted in favour of the petitioner, Shri Damu Govind Kutwal preferred a revision before the S.D.O. Baramati bearing Tenancy Revision Case No. 23/82 wherein he contended that he happens to be the only heir of Krishna Bala Kutwal and mutation Entry bearing No. 576 was effected in his favour in respect of the half portion of Gat No. 700/1-A+3-A. The said revision was heard by S.D.O. Baramati. A complaint was made about the delay in preferring the said revision petition. The point of limitation was also raised. The S.D.O. Baramati confirmed the said judgment and order passed by Tahsildar, Baramati granting the certificate under section 32-M for the entire land to the petitioner. A revision application was filed before the M.R.T. and it was brought to the notice of the M.R.T. that the present petitioner was not entitled to get a certificate in view of section 32-M for the entire land because Damu Govind Kutwal was the only heir to Krishna Bala Kutwal to whom the said half portion of the land belonged. After hearing the submissions advanced by the parties, the learned Member of M.R.T. came to the conclusion that it was wrong to issue certificate under section 32-M in respect of the entire land without the enquiry regarding disposal of the suit land, viz., half portion of the land bearing Survey No. 700/1-A+3-A measuring 2 acres and 6 gunthas. After hearing the submissions advanced by the parties, the learned Member of M.R.T. came to the conclusion that it was wrong to issue certificate under section 32-M in respect of the entire land without the enquiry regarding disposal of the suit land, viz., half portion of the land bearing Survey No. 700/1-A+3-A measuring 2 acres and 6 gunthas. He pointed out that the panchanama in respect of valuation was made in respect of the half portion of Survey No. 700/1-A+3-A and subsequently on 26-11-1965 the price was fixed at Rs. 75/-. He pointed out that in the order of Tahsildar price of Rs. 75/- has been quoted. Thus, keeping in view all these facts, he came to the conclusion that what could have been sold to the petitioner is half portion of the land. Therefore, he quashed the certificate issued to the present petitioner in view of section 32-M on 26-11-1974 for entire Survey No. 700/1-A+3-A. He directed that Babu Bajirao Kutwal, the present petitioner, was entitled to get Northern half portion of Survey No. 700/1-A+3-A measuring 85 ares Pot Kharaba 8 ares and certificate in that context be issued to him under section 32-M. He directed that in respect of the remaining Southern half portion of the said land enquiry in view of section 32-P(2)(c) of the Bombay Tenancy Act be held after making Damu Govind Kutwal the party in the matter of the said enquiry. 3. Smt. Nimbalkar submitted that the said order is totally erroneous and illegal because the M.R.T. did not have the jurisdiction to reopen the case when certificate was granted to the present petitioner in view of provisions of section 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy Act. She submitted that when the revision was dealt with by the S.D.O. Baramati, the point of limitation was raised and it was brought to the notice of the S.D.O. Baramati that the said application was preferred by Damu Govind Kutwal after number of years. She had also submitted that the S.D.O. had after considering these points, confirmed the judgment and order passed by A.L.T. and Tahsildar. According to her, the M.R.T. was totally in error of law for reopening the said matter and quashing the said certificate which was granted in favour of the petitioner in view of provisions of section 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy Act. According to her, the M.R.T. was totally in error of law for reopening the said matter and quashing the said certificate which was granted in favour of the petitioner in view of provisions of section 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy Act. She submitted that the said judgment and order be quashed by allowing this writ petition by issuing a writ of certiorari in favour of the petitioner. 4. Ms. Smita Mane appearing for the respondent submitted that when the present petitioner was not entitled to have the entire land sold to him, how a certificate could be granted to him in respect of the entire land in view of provisions of section 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy Act. She submitted that the M.R.T. had the jurisdiction to consider the error committed by the forum below and, therefore, the writ petition be dismissed. 5. It is pertinent to note that while passing the judgment and order by which a certificate in view of section 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy Act was granted to the present petitioner in respect of the entire land, the A.L.T. and Tahsildar had quoted the price of the said land as Rs. 75/-. However, the record shows that the panchanama was prepared in respect of the Northern half portion of the suit land. When that was so and when the said certificate was issued to the present petitioner erroneously the M.R.T. would be well within its jurisdiction to set aside the said error committed by the A.L.T. and Tehsildar, Baramati and repeated by S.D.O. Baramati, in the interest of justice. The learned Member of M.R.T. was examining the judgments and orders passed by the A.L.T. and Tehsildar, Baramati and the S.D.O., Baramati. He was, well within his jurisdiction and powers to correct the error of fact also because the present petitioner was not entitled to purchase the entire suit land. More particularly, the Southern half portion of it. The argument in respect of delay could not have been entertained and cannot be entertained because Damu Govind Kutwal could enforce his right in respect of the said Southern half portion of the suit land only when he was entitled to exercise it legally. In that context, there is bound to be delay and that delay has to be condoned in the larger interest of the parties. In that context, there is bound to be delay and that delay has to be condoned in the larger interest of the parties. None can be permitted to purchase the land to which he is not entitled to. Had that been permitted to be done, there would have been total failure of justice. When there is likelihood of total failure of justice and the person who is not entitled to purchase the land would be entitled to purchase it on account of the errors committed by the two courts below, the M.R.T. is entitled to quash it and correct the said error in the larger interest of justice. What is illegal, it has to be corrected and legality has to be restored. 6. The petitioner is entitled to make the submissions appropriately before the A.L.T. and Tahsildar when he will be holding the enquiry as per the directions given by the M.R.T. Needless to point out that the respondent Damu Govind Kutwal would be also entitled to make the submissions in respect of his rights. Both the parties would be entitled to adduce evidence in support of their contentions. 7. Thus, the petitions stands dismissed with costs. Rule stands discharged. 8. The said enquiry to be completed within reasonable time and positively within six months. 9. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this judgment duly authenticated by the Private Secretary of this Court. 10. Certified copy expedited. Petition dismissed. -----