1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk WRIT PETITION NO. 9644 OF 2009 Uttam Namdeo Bankar & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Shyamrao Moreshwar Kulkarni & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. S. S. Patwardhan for the Petitioners. Mr. G. S. Godbole i/b Mr. D. V. Godbole & Mr. K. D. Hadkar for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. Date : 22nd February, 2010. P.C. 1. Mentioned. Not on board. Taken on board. 2. Heard. 3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 4. The petitioners claim to be a protected tenant under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. As such protected tenant he made an application under Section 32G of the Act. Their application has been dismissed because a notification under Section 88 of the Act has been issued bringing the land cultivated by the petitioners within Pune Municipal Corporation’s limits and hence taken to be non agricultural land. Since the 2 petitioners’ application to purchase the land to become owners has been dismissed, the entry made in the record of rights showing the names of the petitioners below the name of the original landlady shall have to stand deleted. The order of the SDO to that end is correct. 5. The petitioners claim to be protected tenants. They have been shown as such. The record of rights contained in 7/12 extract shows the petitioners’ cultivation from 1944 in the column Kul & Khand. These entries have been directed to be deleted. The entries are prima-facie evidence of the fact of cultivation. That fact cannot be deleted or erased. It is only clarified that pursuant to these entries in the record of rights the petitioners cannot claim to be protected tenants under the Act. 6. The petitioners’ possession and cultivation is seen. The petitioners would be entitled to claim whatever protection that may be statutorily available to them. 7. Writ petition is disposed of by such clarification. 3 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (R. S. DALVI, J.)