1 wp-8103.08 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8103 OF 2010 Shri Arunkumar Gajanan Lad. .. Petitioner Vs Shri Balaram Barkya Patil .. Respondent -- Shri Rahul Thakur for the Petitioner. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 6TH DECEMBER, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. There are concurrent findings recorded by the three Authorities that the Respondent is a tenant of the suit agricultural land. 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that as a substantial part of the suit land is submerged under the sea water, the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 are not applicable to the suit land. The second submission is that there is no independent evidence of possession of the Respondent. 3. I have considered the submissions. The first contention was not raised by the Petitioner before any of the Authorities below and, therefore, the said contention based on factual aspect cannot be allowed to 2 wp-8103.08 be agitated for the first time in the writ petition. 4. The finding of the three Authorities below is that the name of the grand-father of the Respondent was appearing in the revenue record as on 1st April, 1957 as a tenant and that only by a mutation entry, the name was deleted. 5. As the name of the grand-father of the Respondent appeared as a tenant on the tiller’s day, it is not possible to find fault with the concurrent findings passed by the Authorities below. No case for interference is made out. Hence, the Writ Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J)