1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4166 OF 2008 (Pandhari Adkuji Dhoke vs. MRT, Nagpur & Ors. ) AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4165 OF 2008 (Champat Hari Salve vs. MRT, Nagpur & Ors. ) AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4174 OF 2008 (Suresh Motiram Salve vs. MRT, Nagpur & Ors. ) AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4177 OF 2008 (Sandeep Vitthalrao Dhoke & Anr. vs. MRT, Nagpur & Ors. ) 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. OCTOBER 21, 2008. Heard Shri Kuthe, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Kankale, Shri Kothari and Shri Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for respondents No.1 to 3 & 5 in respective petitions. The challenge is to the judgment of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, dated 06.02.1996, by which Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal rejected the appeals of present petitioners, who are purchasers from surplus land owners under Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as Ceiling Act). It is found that purchase by them is between 26.09.1970 to 02.10.1975. The provisions 2 of Section 10 of the Ceiling Act, affect such transfers and there is presumption that transfer by original land owner during this period was to defeat the provisions of Ceiling Act. Shri Kuthe, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the transfer is bonafide because after transfer, possession is also transferred and is with the present petitioners. The fact of possession with present petitioners is in no way relevant for application of Section 10 of the Ceiling Act. Similarly, various judgments on which Shri Kuthe, learned counsel has placed reliance has also no application. Those judgments are in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Anjanabai, reported at 2004 (4) Mh. L.J. 503, Hargovind vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2006 (6) Mh. L.J. 616 and Bhagyashreeraje vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2006 (5) Mh. L.J. 350. The judgments do not deal with the question of bonafides or then the consequence of transfers as contemplated by Section 10 of the Ceiling Act. The learned Assistant Government Pleaders have stated that after earlier remand, total 20.47 Acres of land was found to be deficient and, therefore, possession of that extent was to be taken from subsequent purchasers i.e. total 10 purchasers. 3 The learned AGPs point out that out of them, only four approached Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal but then the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has found that the area to be taken from each subsequent purchaser has been properly worked out by giving them the necessary benefit. These findings of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Warora or Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, do not appear to be perverse or erroneous in any way. The original land owner has stated that he lost right up to the High Court and therefore, he disposed of all his land and did not keep with him a single acre of land. It is obvious, therefore, that after fighting up to this Court, he disposed of all land to collect whatever he could collect and intention was, therefore, obviously to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Act. No case is, therefore, made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.