1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.753 OF 2011 Shri.Ramchandra Appa Sakpal & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s Shri.Tukaram Babu Ghadi & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.J.Shekhar i/by M/s.J.Shekhar & Co., Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 11th February, 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr.Shekhar Jagtap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge (i) the judgment and order dated 31.7.1987 passed by the Tenancy Avval Karkoon in Tenancy Case No.22 of 1986, (ii) the judgment and order dated 3.9.2002 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kankavli Division, Kankavli in Tenancy Appeal No.5 of 2000 as also (iii) the judgment and order dated 18.10.2010 passed by the learned President of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai (for short the “Tribunal”) in Revision Application No.85/B/2002. 2. By these orders, the Tenancy Authorities, allowed the application made by the 1st Respondent, Tukaram Babu Ghadi, since deceased under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and 2 Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short the “Act”) and declared Respondent No.1 to be the tenant in respect of the agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos.63 (142) Hissa No.2A, 63 (142) Hissa No.2B, 63 (142) Hissa No.2C totally admeasuring 7 Hectors and 21 Gunthas to the extent of half portion of the lands situate at Mond, Taluka Deogad, District Sindhudurg (for short the suit lands). 3. In support of this petition, Mr.Jagtap strenuously contended that by the judgment and order dated 5.4.1971 the Additional Tahasildar, ALT-II Deogad in Tenancy Case No.Mond/577, fixed the purchase price under Section 32G of the Act in respect of Survey No.142 (p), Hissa No.2, admeasuring 9 Acres and 21 Gunthas. The purchase price was fixed on the basis that the father of the petitioner No.1, Appa Bhiva Sakpal was tenant as on 1.4.1957. The said Appa paid the purchase price and accordingly certificate u/s.32M of the Act was issued in his favour. He further submitted that by the judgment and order dated 5.4.1971 the Additional Tahasildar, ALT-II Deogad in Tenancy Case No.Mond/1079, fixed the purchase price under Section 32-G of the Act in respect of Survey No.142 (p), Hissa 3 No.2, admeasuring 9 Acres and 21 Gunthas. The purchase price was fixed on the basis that the Petitioner No.2, Bhikaji Bhau Mungekar, since deceased, was tenant as on 1.4.1957. The said Bhikaji paid the purchase price and accordingly certificate u/s. 32M of the Act was issued in his favour. He therefore submitted that since Appa, father of the Petitioner No.1 and the Petitioner No.2, Bhikaji, since deceased, were accepted as tenants in respect of the suit lands, the authorities below committed error in declaring the 1st Respondent as tenant of half portion of the suit lands. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the order dated 18.10.2010, the Tribunal has considered that the Respondent No.1, since deceased had filed Tenancy Case No.22 of 1986 for declaration of his status as a tenant. Father of the Petitioner No.1-Ramchandra and Petitioner No.2-Bhikaji, since deceased, were impleaded as Respondent Nos.6 & 7 in that proceedings. The Respondent No.5 herein, Anant G.Kulkarni, since deceased and one of the landlords, claiming to be the owner of 8 annas share in the suit lands admitted tenancy of the Respondent No.1 Tukaram, since 4 deceased. The Petitioner No.1 herein - Ramchandra also gave statement admitting the tenancy of Respondent No.1 Tukaram to the extent of half share in the suit lands. The father of the Petitioner No.1 Ramchandra, also admitted tenancy of the Respondent No.1 Tukaram. The adjacent land owner also gave statement to the effect that the Respondent No.1 is cultivating the suit lands. After considering the evidence on record, by an order dated 31.7.1987 the learned Tenancy Avval Karkoon declared Respondent No.1, since deceased, to be the tenant of half portion of the suit lands. 5. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioners preferred Tenancy Appeal No.5 of 2000 on 12.1.2000, i.e.to say nerely after 13 years. The learned Sub Divisional Officer dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay as also on the ground that the Petitioner No.1-Ramchandra admitted before the Tenancy Avval Karkoon that the Respondent No.1-Tukaram was possessing the suit lands as a tenant. 6. The petitioners challenged these orders by way of revision application before the Tribunal. The learned President of the Tribunal, after exhaustively considering the evidence on record 5 rejected the revision application. The Tribunal considered the statements made by (1) Mr.Anant Kulkarni, one of the landlords; (2) Mr.Govind Sonar, Respondent No.4 herein; (3) Mr.Ramchandra, Petitioner No.1 herein; (4) Bhikaji Bhau Mungekar, since deceased and (5) Mr.Bhikaji Tambe, the adjacent land owner, who also confirmed the possession of Respondent No.1-Tukaram, since deceased, over the suit lands. 7. Mr.Jagtap submitted that by order dated 5.4.1971 passed in the Tenancy Case No.Mond/577 and Mond/1079, the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 were recognised as tenants. However, it is relevant to note that in these proceedings, the Respondent No.1-Tukaram, since deceased, was admittedly not made a party. It therefore cannot be said that the Respondent No.1 was bound by those decisions. As against this, in the proceedings filed by Respondent No.1 - Tukaram under Section 70(b) of the Act, the petitioners were impleaded as Respondent Nos.6 & 7. The said proceedings were contested and on the basis of material on record the Tenancy Authorities concurrently held in favour of the Respondent No.1. 8. In view thereof, no fault can be found with the judgment and 6 orders passed by the Tenancy Authorities. The Authorities below have considered the material on record as also the statements made by the parties in the proceedings. In my opinion, no case for invocation of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been made out. Petition is therefore summarily dismissed. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)