1 (WP3607/10) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3607 OF 2010 1. Balu Tukaram Koli (Deceased Legal heirs) 1-A] Nathuram Balu Koli and others ..... Petitioners. v/s 1. The State of Maharashtra and others. ..... Respondents. Mr. P.B. Kakade with Mr. D.P. More for the Petitioners. Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Mrs Neha Bhide, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 22nd February, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents and the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Tenancy Revision No.NS-IX-7/93. By the said judgment and order, the 2 (WP3607/10) MRT was pleased to allow the revision application filed by the Respondents/tenants and the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer in Tenancy Appeal No.31 of 1991 was set aside and the order of Tahsildar which was passed in favour of tenants was confirmed. 3. Brief facts are as under:- 4. The subject matter of dispute is in respect of agricultural land being Survey No.3 admeasuring 4 Acres 11 Guthas situated at village Nadoli, District Satara. Initially, the said land was Class VI-B Inam Land which was owned by the Petitioners herein. It is an admitted position that the land was re-granted to the Petitioners in 1963. Respondents are claiming to be the tenants in respect of the suit land since 1956 initially through their predecessor Tukaram Babaji Pawar. The controversy between the parties is whether the Respondents are tenants of the suit land or whether the Petitioners are mortgagees. The dispute between the parties is going on since last 40 years and, finally, ALT made an inquiry under section 70B of the B.T. & A.L. Act and held that Respondents herein are tenants. This order has been confirmed by the Tribunal. The ALT as also the MRT has given cogent reasons after taking into consideration the evidence on record and has given finding that the Respondents are tenants of the suit land. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution 3 (WP3607/10) of India, this Court is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence on record, unless it is shown that the finding recorded by the lower authorities is perverse. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents was not in a position to point out as to how the finding recorded by both the authorities is perverse. He has relied upon the five judgments of this Court and these Judgments are in Atmaram Bapu Mane (deceased through his heris) & Ors vs. Srimant Sopan Mane & Others1, Gulabrao Sahebrao Shinde vs. Sayaji Shankar Shinde2, Shri Bhiku Kundalika Gadhave & another vs. G.B. Deshmukh & others3, Ganpat Tatyaba Khadtale vs. Smt. Ushabai Bhimrao Chavan & others4 and in Govind Gangadhar Walve & others vs. Baban Sadhu Salve since deceased through his legal heirs5 However, he was not in a position to point out as to how the ratio of the said judgments is applicable to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, it is not possible to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Writ Petition is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 1 2003(4) Bom.C.R.245 2 2004(3) Bom.C.R.159 3 2001(1) Bom.C.R. 237 4 1998(1) Bom.C.R. 595 5 2006(2) Bom.C.R.870 4 (WP3607/10)