*1* wp.6305.10.929.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6305 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.344 OF 2011 Nago Undrya Burud. ..Petitioner -Versus- Narottam Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.. ..Respondent .......... Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ramesh A. Karale, for the Petitioner. Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate with Mr.K.S.Dewal, for the Respondent. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 05th July, 2011. P.C.: 1 By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 21.06.2010 which was stated to be common judgment arising out of the tenancy appeals disposed of by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Thane. The Sub-Divisional Officer has dismissed the tenancy appeals of the Respondent-Society challenging that of the Tahasildar & Agricultural Land Tribunal in tenancy cases. Tenancy Case No.8/2002 was filed by the Petitioner before him for declaration that he is tenant deemed purchaser of the agricultural land. That status was accepted by the Tahasildar and Agricultural Land Tribunal and the Petitioner was declared as such. The appeals of the Respondent-Society against the same were dismissed. Aggrieved thereby the revision applications were preferred. By *2* wp.6305.10.929.sxw the impugned order both concurrent judgments having been reversed and the Petitioner’s tenancy cases having been dismissed, that this Writ Petition is filed. 2 Mr.Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that the matter must be looked from the point of view of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The proceedings commenced vide the application of the Petitioner for declaration of his status. The relief claimed under Section 70(b) of the BTAL Act is on the basis that the Petitioner has projected his title by being in possession of the agricultural land on the tillers day i.e. 01.04.1957. If that is position, by operation of law the Petitioner gets confirmed status as owner of the agricultural land and irrespective of what the Petitioner has done later on, namely, by filing a civil suit being RCS No.2/1988 simplicitor for injunction and withdrawing the same and filing another suit being Special Civil Suit No.377/1989 for declaration of his title by adverse possession, will not be of any consequence. Relying upon the orders passed therein, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal should not have reversed the concurrent findings of fact in its limited jurisdiction. Such reversal is contrary to the settled principles of law. It is also vitiated by non application of mind to the nature of the proceedings before the civil court. If the issue was of possession of the land and that possession having not been disputed throughout, then, the issue whether the said possession can be traced to the tillers day could have been decided only by the authorities under the BTAL Act and result of the civil suits cannot have any impact on the same. For these reasons, he prays that the Writ Petition be allowed. 3 On perusal of the orders impugned before this Court and some of the documents, it is not possible to accept these contentions. *3* wp.6305.10.929.sxw Firstly, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 76 of the BTAL Act is precisely conferred for correcting the errors of law apparent on the face of record and set right perverse judgments and orders. In the limited jurisdiction that is conferred, it is possible in a given case to interfere if the Tribunal concludes that the authorities have failed to apply their mind to important and vital material which was on record. The Tribunal could have also interfered if the findings were vitiated by perversity. 4 In the instant case what the Tribunal finds is that the dispute is about agricultural lands being Survey Nos.55, 56 and 57 situate at Mumbra, Taluka & District : Thane. The Petitioner has filed an application being Tenancy Case No.5/1992 for declaration of his status to be tenant deemed purchaser under Section 70(b) of the BTAL Act. The basis of this claim is that the suit lands are in possession of the Petitioner since more than 40 years. It was his case that the land was owned by Narottam Keshavlal Shah and others and they put the Petitioner in possession. He was cultivating 3/4th portion of the said land and remaining 1/4th was used for fishing business. The Petitioner approached the landlord and requested to accept the rent, but he refused and that is how the Petitioner filed the civil suit claiming injunction. Now nature of the civil suits have been referred to inasmuch as it is not disputed that the Petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No.2/1988 for injunction. Temporary injunction was granted by the Trial Court on 24.02.1988 which order was challenged in Misc. Civil Appeal. Be that as it may, in the suit, the pleading was that the land is in possession of the Petitioner as tenant since 1978-79. The plaint itself proceeded on the basis that the Respondent Society’s President agreed to give the entire land on lease for cultivation and that is how his name is recorded as cultivator. In the said suit he has not contended that prior to 1978-79 the land was in his possession as tenant and particularly *4* wp.6305.10.929.sxw tracing his possession to the tillers day. He thereafter filed another suit being Special Civil Suit No.377/1989 and claimed declaration of his title by adverse possession and claimed the relief of permanent injunction as well. This suit was dismissed and in the meanwhile when earlier suit was pending, the proceedings under the BTAL Act were commenced. It is clear that earlier Suit No.2/1988 was also withdrawn on 29.08.1991. In the earlier suit, the Petitioner’s claim might have been given up, but the counter claim of the Respondent Society was allowed and a decree for permanent injunction was granted in favour of the Respondent-Society accepting its possession. The Petitioner has, thus, lost in the first suit and also in substantive suit where he claimed title on the basis of his adverse possession. He filed First Appeal No.107/1998 in this Court against the dismissal of the suit for injunction and also challenged the decree in favour of the Respondent-Society in First Appeal No.1695/1996. However, he withdrew First Appeal No.107/1998 on 30.07.2009. In such circumstances, I do not see how the Tribunal committed any error apparent or its conclusion is vitiated by non application of mind. No where the record indicates that the Tribunal found that the possession of the Petitioner can be traced to the tillers day and yet it proceeded to rely upon the adjudication before the civil court. Something could have been said in favour of the Petitioner, had the possession been traced to the tillers day and that aspect was ignored by the Tribunal and it relied only on the adjudication before the competent civil court. The Tribunal was aware that it must consider the claim of the Petitioner of tenancy of agricultural land and declaration as claimed within four corners of the BTAL Act and that it did so, is clear from the Tribunal’s order because besides relying on the civil proceedings, it also found from the record that the Petitioner was unable to show his possession over the land on the *5* wp.6305.10.929.sxw tillers day. The Tribunal found that the authorities under the BTAL Act ignored the statements that the possession is not claimed from tillers day, but from 1978-79. Yet, while rendering the finding against the Petitioner, the Tribunal has referred to the statement of one Gangaram Ubhrekar who claimed that the Petitioner is in possession of the property since 1957. This gentleman was not aware of the crops which were taken on the land by the Petitioner. He admitted that in 1957 he was a boy of 3 to 4 years. One Sudam Takle was also examined on behalf of the Petitioner, who claimed to be adjoining land owner and he stated that the land is in possession of the Petitioner since 1957. In the cross-examination, he admitted that there is a compound wall around the disputed land and half portion of the land is submerged in the sea-water. He also admitted that in 1957 he was a boy of 13 years. Such being the nature of evidence led to support the plea of possession on the tillers day, the Tribunal committed no error in disbelieving the Petitioner and over turning and reversing the concurrent findings of fact rendered in his favour. The findings of fact being inconsistent with the pleadings and contrary to the material placed on record and vitiated by perversity, the Tribunal was in no error in allowing the revision. As a result of the above discussion, it is not possible to accept the contentions of Mr.Dhakephalkar that by merely relying on the pleadings in the civil court, a finding against the Petitioner has been rendered. 5 In this view of the matter, this Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. The Civil Application also does not survive and it is also dismissed. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)