1 SSK/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10860 OF 2009 Shri Baban Shivram Bhorde & Ors. ....Petitioners Versus Shri Kaluram Anandrao More & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Vishwanath Talkute, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Pratap Patil for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 & 7. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 1st JULY, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr. Talkute and Mr.Patil, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Respondents respectively. 2. The petition arises out of proceedings under section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. There is no dispute that 88-C certificate was granted in favour of Respondents/Landlords on 10th June, 1961 after hearing the Petitioners’ predecessor-in-title who were tenants in the suit property. Possession of the suit land was handed over to the Respondents/Landlords by the predecessor-in-title of the Petitioners. Subsequent thereto, the Petitioners’ predecessor-in-title were cultivating the 2 suit property under “Nokarnama”. The said Nokarnama is produced at page no. 47 of the Trial Court record. The Nokarnama supports the case of the Respondents/Landlords that the original tenants-predecessor-in-title of the Petitioners handed over the possession of the suit land to the Respondents/Landlords in pursuant of 88-C certificate. 3. Mr.Talkute, learned Counsel for the Petitioners made submission that even though 88-C certificate was obtained by the Respondents/Landlords, they have not initiated any proceedings under section 33-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and therefore, Petitioners have become deemed tenants. This submission, in my view is without any merit in as much as the predecessor-in-title of the Petitioners having handed over the possession to the Respondents/Landlords in the year 1961, it was not necessary to the Respondents/Landlords to initiate any proceedings under section 33-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. 4. Mr. Talkute, learned Counsel for the Petitioners also submitted that surrendering or handing over of the possession to the predecessor-in- title of the Petitioners in 1961 cannot be considered as legal, in as much as there cannot be surrender after tillers’ day, since by legal fiction, the tenant becomes owner of the tenanted property. This submission do not hold any 3 merit in as much as the suit land is Patil Inam Watan Land falling in class II and therefore, the predecessor-in-title of the Petitioners could not have deemed to have purchased the suit property on tiller’s day. All the three authorities viz. Tahsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal have considered and appreciated facts on record and con-current findings are recorded by these authorities that the Petitioners have failed to prove tenancy in the suit land. A finding is also recorded regarding Certificate under section 88-C in favour of the Respondent, handing over possession by the predecessor in title in favour of the Respondents/Landlords and Nokarnama by the predecessor in title of the Petitioners. In these circumstances, I do not find any error in the impugned order, so as to enable me to interfere in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (R. V. MORE, J.)