1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.567/2011 DEEPAK DAULAT DHOBE & ANOTHER ..VS.. BHAGIRATH TOHOKAR & OTHERS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Kilor, advocate for petitioners \ Shri K.L.Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.6 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : MARCH 25, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the S.D.O. on 11.9.2007 and the order passed by the M.R.T. on 2.7.2010, holding that the application filed by the petitioners for restoration of possession of the agricultural lands in favour of the petitioner was liable to be rejected. The father of the petitioners was the owner of the agricultural lands. The lands were leased out in favour of the father of the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.1 was declared to be a tenant of the suit land. Subsequently, according to the petitioners, after the respondent no.1 became the owner of the agricultural lands under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, the respondent no.1 and 2 had leased out the property to the father of the respondent no.4 and 5 and hence, the landlord was entitled for restoration of the possession of the agricultural lands. The Tahsildar by an order dated 20.2.2090, partly allowed, the application filed by the petitioners on the ground that the respondent no.1 had illegally leased the agricultural land in favour of the father of the respondents no.4 and 5 and the transfer was invalid under the provisions of section 57(1) of the 2 Tenancy Act. The Tahsildar then directed that the notices be issued to the father of the respondent no.1 and 2 as to why the transfer by way of lease in favour of the father of respondent no.4 and 6 should not be declared to be invalid under section 122(1) of the Act. The Tahsildar observed that further enquiry can be made and the land can be vested in the state government, in accordance with the provisions of section 122(3) of the Act. The order of the Tahsildar was challenged by the respondent no.1 and 2, before the Sub Divisional Officer, Nagpur. The Sub Divisional Officer, by the impugned order dated 11.9.2007 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 and 2. The S.D.O. held that the Tahsildar had wrongly relied on the illegal entries in the 7/12 extract to hold that there was a transfer of the agricultural land, in favour of the father of respondent on.4 and 5, by way of lease. The S.D.O. found that there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever except the entries in the 7/12 extract and since the entries in the 7/12 extracts were recorded, without following the mandatory procedure as required by rule 31 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Record of Rights & Registers [Preparation & Maintenance] Rules 1971, the findings of the Tahsildar that there was a transfer of the property by the respondent no.1 and 2 in favour of the father of respondent no.4 and 5 was incorrect. Hence the S.D.O. held that there was no lease of the agricultural land in favour of the father of the respondent no.4 and 5 and hence there was no question of vesting of the land in the state government in view of the provisions of section 122(3) of the Tenancy Act. The findings 3 recorded by the S.D.O. were maintained by the M.R.T. in revision filed by the petitioner. On a reading of the orders passed by the S.D.O. and the M.R.T., it is clear that there was no evidence, much less any cogent evidence for holding that the respondent no.1 and 2 had leased the land in favour of the father of the respondent no.4 and 5 and hence the authorities rightly held that there was no illegal transfer of the land by way of lease by respondent no.1 and 2. The Tahsildar had erroneously relied upon the entries in 7/12 extract, though the entries were not effected after following the due procedure as was required to be followed under rule 31 of the Rules of 1971. The findings recorded by both the authorities are pure findings of facts which call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The judgment reported in 1984 in EQ(Bombay) Page 412, and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, can not be made applicable to the facts of this case. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP