(1) WP. 5818.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5818 OF 2010 Hiraman S/o Chandu Naik and ors. .. Petitioners VERSUS Bhillu S/o Chimna Rathod and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Shrikishan S. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. G.P. for the respondent-State Mr. C.D. Biradar, Advocate for the respondent no.4 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 13TH JULY, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard learned counsel. The petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 5.4.2010 rendered by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in case no. 25-B-2003-O. By that judgment, the revision Petition filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed. The petitioners allege that they have purchased the land in question from Khutubuddin in whose favour the original landlady, by name Aminabi had executed a will deed. It appears that said landlady i.e. Aminabi was the (2) WP. 5818.2010 mother-in-law of the said Khutubuddin. The respondents 1 and 2 claimed their right for mutation of their names in respect of the suit land. The Additional Tahsildar held that the respondents were entitled to claim rights under section 38-E and 38-G of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 to the extent of 30 acres after excluding the holding of 54 acres in favour of said Aminabi and the acquired land. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing appeal. The learned Deputy Collector remanded the matter by partly allowing the appeal. The Additional Tahsildar by order dated 25.7.2002 rejected the application of the respondents 1 and 2 and held that the respondents 1 and 2 cannot be declared as tenants to the extent of 30 acres area of the suit land. The respondent no.1 preferred appeal which was subsequently allowed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) by judgment dated 21.4.2003. The case of the petitioners is that there is locality of their community members i.e. "Lamans" and that the land in question was in possession of their predecessor as tenants. (3) WP. 5818.2010 2. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the relevant material is taken into account by Deputy Collector (L.R.) and the learned Member of the M.R.T. Counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to copy of panchanama dated 20.7.2002 (Exh."F" to the Petition). It appears that there is a small hamlet within the land survey no. 119 (gat no.369) wherein the petitioners are residing. Still, however, it cannot be ignored that the land was not measured while preparing the panchanama. The land survey no. 119 is of 35 acres and 13 gunthas. It is not clear as to in which part of the land and to what extent there is residential locality of the petitioners. There are concurrent findings rendered by the learned Deputy Collector (L.R.) and the learned Member of the M.R.T. has reversed the transfer of rights by deceased Aminabi. The petitioners claim their rights through Khutubuddin. They may agitate all the questions of facts and law before the Civil Court by filing appropriate civil Suit. In the exercise of writ jurisdiction, this (4) WP. 5818.2010 Court will not entertain the disputed question of fact. 3. In this view of the matter, the Petition is dismissed. However, the residential houses of the petitioners shall be maintained as it is, till expiry of eight (8) week hereafter. The petitioners, in the meanwhile, may seek appropriate remedy as may be permissible under the law. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp