1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1321 OF 2010. Ramaji Daulatrao Wairagade -: versus :- Vina Chandrakant Pande and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : APRIL 22, 2010. Heard Shri S. Khedkar, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri V.N. Patil, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 5 and 6. Petitioner is challenging the judgment delivered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 19.11.2009 in Revision under Section 111 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has upheld the orders passed in Appeal by the Sub Divisional Officer and the orders passed by the Tahsildar in proceedings initiated for purchase of and under Section 43 read with Section 50 thereof. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that there was a revenue entry which shows that in the year 1987- 88 the petitioner cultivated suit lands as tenant. That entry has attained finality and in the face of that entry the controversy needed to be considered. As the presence of petitioner on land as tenant is established, his other 2 contention that rent [makta] of Rs.2500/- was paid every year and there was renewal, ought to have been accepted. Because of said renewal notice under section 43[1][a] issued on 02.11.1987 could not have been held to be beyond the period of one year. In this background the application of deemed surrender and hence possession being unlawful or inference as drawn is liable to be set aside. Shri Patil, learned counsel on the other hand argues that the pleadings of petitioner and his evidence are inconsistent and the learned Tribunal has commented upon it. He further states that if the tenancy commenced in the year 1978-79, notice ought to have been issued within one year from that date. He also attempts to point out that the solitary entry of possession as tenant in the year 1986-87 is challenged by respondents. I find that evidence on record is appreciated by all authorities. The learned Tribunal also has in revision gone into that evidence at length. It has noticed that the petitioner claimed cultivation since 16-17 years, but in his application filed before Tahsildar, this period was not disclosed. The alleged threats of dispossession by landlord were also not pleaded. It has also found that there was no evidence and the payment of annual makta has not been established. In this situation, it has considered the revenue entries for the year 1986-87 and found that the said year expired on 31.03.1987. Notice under Section 43[1][a] is therefore, rightly found by it to be beyond prescribed period, as that notice is issued on 02.11.1987. 3 It is therefore, apparent that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has first ascertained the facts and then applied the law to it. No case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.