Judgment : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the impugned order dated 18th August, 2010 in Appeal No. 11A/2010-L, passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, thereby entertaining the appeal and granting interim relief in favour of the respondents. 3. The facts leading to file this writ petition, as disclosed in the writ petition, are as under. The petitioners filed application being Case No. 2009/LR/Inam/KV/53 before the Tahsildar, Nilanga under Section 9 of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 (For short, "said Act"), stating therein that, they had filed proceedings before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Latur for restoration of the land Survey No. 198A, situated at village Korali Taluka Nilanga District Latur, by evicting the respondents. The Deputy Collector had transferred the proceedings to the Tahsildar, Nilanga under Section 225 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, in view of the powers vested in the said authority. It is the case of the petitioners that, the matter was contested before the Tahsildar and the petitioners submitted that, the respondents are unauthorizedly and illegally having the possession of the suit property and they should be evicted, and the petitioners are liable for holding the possession of the said land in view of the Section 9 of the said Act. It is the case of the petitioners that, it was brought to the notice of the authorities that the alleged transaction of the sale deed was null and void and it had no legal validity and not binding on the Government, as the same was without prior permission of the competent authority i.e. Collector. It is also pointed out that, the petitioners are watandar of the land, Mutation Entry was effected in favour of the petitioners and therefore, they are having rights of ownership and restricted ownership is acquired by the petitioners. The Tahsildar, Nilanga by order dated 5th March, 2010 allowed the application of the petitioners and directed the land in question be restored in favour of the petitioners by evicting the respondents who are illegally and unauthorizedly holding the possession of the suit land. It was directed that, the possession should be given to Naib Tahsildar. 4. The respondents herein, aggrieved by the said order of the Tahsildar filed Appeal No.11A/2010-L before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad. It was directed that, the possession should be given to Naib Tahsildar. 4. The respondents herein, aggrieved by the said order of the Tahsildar filed Appeal No.11A/2010-L before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad. By order dated 1st April, 2010, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, granted ad-interim stay to the execution of the order passed by the Tahsildar. The petitioners herein, appeared in the said proceedings and resisted the alleged claim of the respondents before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and raised the points that, the respondents are unauthorizedly holding the lands in question and the lands in question, have been abolished and are regranted to Watandar after payment of occupancy charges and their names have been incorporated in the record and the respondents have no any right whatsoever. It is the case of the petitioners that, the application was filed by the petitioners before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, thereby questioning the jurisdiction of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal to entertain the appeal. It was contended that, the provisions of appeal under Section 12 of the said Act are provided only against the award passed by the Collector and the appeal is not maintainable against the order passed by the Tahsildar, however, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal rejected the said application. Hence the writ petition. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to the provisions of sections 9 and 12 of the said Act. It is submitted that, the order passed by the Tahsildar is under section 9 of the said Act. The appeal which is provided under section 12 of the said Act is only against the award passed by the Collector and appeal is not provided against any order passed by the Tahsildar under section 9 of the said Act. It is further submitted that, the order is passed by the Tahsildar for summary eviction of the respondents from the suit lands and Naib Tahsildar was told to restore the possession of the petitioners and therefore, the said order cannot be said to be award. It is submitted that, the appeal should not have been entertained by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and further no any interim order should have been passed staying the effect of the order of the Tahsildar. It is submitted that, the appeal should not have been entertained by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and further no any interim order should have been passed staying the effect of the order of the Tahsildar. Therefore, relying on the grounds taken in the writ petition, provisions of the said Act and also judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur in the case of LatariRama Warthi vs. Krishna Rajeshwar Thipe reported in 1967 Mh.L.J. 27, the Counsel for the petitioners submits that, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, the powers are delegated by the Collector to the Tahsildar, and therefore, it cannot be said that, the order passed by the Tahsildar cannot be challenged before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It is submitted that, the powers of the Collector have been delegated to the Tahsildar under the provisions of the said Act read with Government Notification dated 8th February, 1963, therefore, once the powers are delegated to the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar has exercised the powers of the Collector and passed that order, is an award and therefore, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has rightly entertained the appeal. The learned Counsel relied upon the reasons recorded by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and submitted that, the writ petition is devoid of any merits, same may be dismissed. 7. Upon hearing the Counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the grounds taken in the writ petition, provisions of section 9 and 12 of the said Act, this Court is of the opinion that, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order passed by the Tahsildar under section 9 of the said Act. The provisions of section 9 and 12 of the said Act reads thus: "9. The provisions of section 9 and 12 of the said Act reads thus: "9. (1) Where any watan land resumed under Section 4 is in the possession of an unauthorised holder, such unauthorised holder shall be summarily evicted therefrom by the Collector in accordance with the provisions of the Code: Provided that where in the case of any unauthorised holder, the State Government is of opinion that in view of the investment made by such holder in the development of the land or in the nonagricultural use of the land or otherwise, the eviction of such holder from the land will involve undue hardship to him, it may direct the Collector to regrant the land to such holder on payment of such amount and Subject to such terms and conditions as the State Government may determine and the Collector shall regrant the land to such holder accordingly. (2) Watan land which is not regranted under sub-section (1) shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the rules made thereunder applicable to the disposal of unoccupied unalienated land." "12. An appeal shall lie against an award of the Collector to the Bombay Revenue Tribunal constituted under Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957, notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act." 8. Bare perusal of the provisions of section 9 of the said Act would make it abundantly clear that, the Tahsildar is empowered to pass the order in respect of eviction of unauthorized holder of the land and to pass appropriate orders. The order passed by the Tahsildar in the present case cannot be said to be an award. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in its judgment in paragraph-2 has observed that, “In the present case the impugned order is passed by the learned Tahsildar, Ausa in the proceedings U/s 9 of the Act of 1958. Hence, it is difficult to say that the impugned order is an award.” Therefore, this observation/finding of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal would make it abundantly clear that, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was convinced that, the order passed by the Tahsildar under section 9 of the said Act, is not an award. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the respondents. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the respondents. The appeal which is provided under section 12 of the said Act to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, is only from the award passed by the Collector and there was no question of entertaining the appeal filed by the respondent challenging the order of the Tahsildar, which is passed under section 9 of the said Act. 9. Reliance placed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal upon the provisions of section 315 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is wholly misplaced in the facts of this case. The said Act of 1958, provides remedy of appeal under section 12 only against an award passed by the Collector. There is another remedy of appeal provided under sub section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act. If any order is passed by the Collector, when any question arises whether any land is Watan land or whether any person is a Watandar or whether any person is an unauthorized holder and if such question is answered by the Collector and the decision is given and if any person is aggrieved by the said decision, the appeal is provided to the State Government under sub section (2) of section 3. 10. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the impugned order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, cannot be sustained in law, same is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, same is quashed and set aside. As a result, the appeal filed before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal being Appeal Nos. 11A/2010-L by the respondents, is not maintainable, therefore, same stands dismissed. Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent, same stands disposed of. Rule made absolute on above terms. No order as to costs.