1 W.P.No.2909/91 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2909 OF 1991. Ramdas S/o Nathu Choudhari, (deceased), His L.Rs. 1. Sumanbai W/o Ramdas Choudhari, Aged 50 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Jarandi, Tq.Soyegaon, Dist.Aurangabad. 2. Kum.Kalpanabai d/o Ramdas Choudhari, Aged 23 years, Occ.Household, R/o Jarandi, Tq.Soyegaon, Dist.Aurangabad. 3. Kum.Alpanabai d/o Ramdas Choudhari, Aged 22 years, Occ.Household, R/o Jarandi, Tq.Soyegaon, Dist.Aurangabad. 4. Ganesh S/o Ramdas Choudhari, Aged 21 years, Occ.Education, R/o Jarandi, Tq. Soyegaon, Dist.Aurangabad. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. Smt.Jankabai W/o Madhavrao Deshpande, Aged 52 years, Occ.Agril.,R/o Bahulkheda, Tq.Soegaon, Dist.Aurangabad. At present residing at Walsawadala, Tq.Bhokardan, Dist.Jalna. 2 W.P.No.2909/91 2. Smt.Shantabai W/o Sitaram Deshpande, deceased through her legal heirs : 2-A) Bhanudas S/o Sitaram Deshpande, Age 57 years, Occ.Nil, R/o C/o S.S.Deshpande, H/o Shri R.R.Wadekar, H.No.A-4-11, Shivaji Nagar, Cidco, Aurangabad. 2-B) Smt.Bharati W/o Bhalchandra Deshpande, Age 40 years, Occ. Household, R/o C/o S.S.Deshpande, H/O Shri R.R.Wadekar, H.No.A-4-11, Shivaji Nagar, Cidco, Aurangabad. 2-C) Smt.Suvarna W/o Dattatraya Deshpande, Age 44 years, Occ. Household,R/o C/o S.S.Deshpande, H/O Shri R.R.Wadekar, H.No. A-4-11, Shivaji Nagar, Cidco, Aurangabad. 2-D) Shyamkant S/o Sitaram Deshpande, Age 42 years, Occ. Service, R/o H/O Shri R.R.Wadekar, H.No.A-4-11, Shivaji Nagar, Cidco, Aurangabad. 2-E) Sharadkumar S/o Sitaram Deshpande, Age 40 years, Occ. Service, R/o Panchayat Samiti Vaijapur, Dist.Aurangabad. ... Respondents. 3. Sadashiv S/o Nathu Choudhari, Age 40 years,Occ.Agril., R/o Jarandi, Tq.Soegaon, Dist.Aurangabad. 4. Devidas S/o Nathu Choudhari, Age 38 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Jarandi, Tq.Soegaon, Dist.Aurangabad. 5. Ramesh S/o Nathu Choudhari, Age 32 years, Occ.Agril., 3 W.P.No.2909/91 R/o Jarandi, Tq.Soegaon, Dist.Aurangabad. 6. The Tahsildar, Soegaon, Tq.Soegaon, Dist. Aurangabad. 7. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad. 8. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad. ... Respondents. Respondent Nos.6 to 8 deleted as per Court's order dt.10.9.91. ... Mr.S.S.Choudhari, advocatefor the petitioners. Mr.Abhay Shinde, advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Mr.M.M.Patil (Beedkar), advocate for the Respondent Nos.2A to 2E. Respondent Nos.6 to 8 deleted. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 17.08.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. In a Civil suit filed by the present petitioners and Respondent Nos.3,4 and 5, the Civil Court referred the following issue to the 4 W.P.No.2909/91 tenancy Court. "Do plaintiffs prove that they cultivate the suit land as protected tenants being heirs of Nathu, the protected tenant." 2. The Additional Tahsildar, answered the said issue in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant Jankabai preferred appeal before the Deputy Collector. The Appeal was allowed by the Deputy Collector. Aggrieved thereby, the present petitioners preferred revision before the MRT, Aurangabad. The MRT, Aurangabad, dismissed the revision. The plaintiffs have assailed the said order in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr.S.S.Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Courts below have not considered the facts on record in correct perspective and thereby have arrived at an erroneous conclusion. 4. According to the learned counsel, the evidence on record shows that Nathu was the 5 W.P.No.2909/91 protected tenant and the petitioners were cultivating the said lands as heirs of protected tenants. Pahani-patrak also supports the same. According to the learned counsel, even the oral evidence is not properly considered by the authorities. 5. Nathu had made an application for restoration of possession of the land U/ss. 45 and 46 of the Tenancy Act. The Tahsildar passed the order in favour of Nathu and ordered resumption of the land. The said order was challenged before the Deputy Collector. The appeal was allowed. Nathu then preferred the revision before MRT. The same was dismissed. Nathu, then challenged the order of MRT before the High Court. The legal heirs prosecuted the said Writ Petition after death of Nathu and the Writ Petition was dismissed in 1980. Thereafter the Respondents have filed a Civil suit. This Court in Writ Petition No.1318/1988 has held that the right of the tenant Nathu to resume possession came to an end. He lost his claim as tenant to the disputed land and the Nathu's 6 W.P.No.2909/91 tenancy came to be terminated way back in 1959. It is also fairly conceded by Mr.Choudhari, learned counsel that the said judgment in W.P.No. 1318/1988, was challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court has also dismissed the Special Leave Petition. In view of the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.1318/1988 is final. In view of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.1318/1988, the present issue is squarely answered. 6. In light of that, it will have to be held that right of Nathu as a tenant itself had come to an end in the year 1959 and his attempt to restore possession also failed. 7. The judgments of the Courts below can not be faulted with. As such the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) 7 W.P.No.2909/91 asp/office/wp290991