1 wp8274-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8274 OF 2010 Sharad Ganesh Sane .. Petitioner Versus Anant Sonu Karande & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Nikhil Rajeshirke for petitioner Mr.A.P.Kulkarni for respondents CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : August 11, 2011 P.C. 1] Heard both sides. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 22nd July 2010 dismissing two revision applications which were preferred by the present petitioner to challenge the order dated 6th March 2002. That order allowed the respondent – tenant’s appeal and declared him a tenant of an agricultural land. It also dismissed the Landlord’s appeal against the order under Tenancy case No.891 of 2000. 2 wp8274-09 2] The only contention raised before me is that the courts below have committed an error apparent in holding that the tenant was in possession and cultivation of the entire land admeasuring 17 gunthas and, therefore, he is recorded tenant in respect of the same. Relying upon the order passed by the Tahsildar and ALT and the admissions given during the cross examination, it is contended that the tenant failed to prove that he was in possession of the entire land. Therefore, the order giving him possession and status as tenant in respect of the entire land is erroneous and must be set aside. 3] The Tribunal as also prior thereto the SDO have found that the deposition and statement of the tenant must be read in its entirety and if so read, it is apparent that the possession as on tiller’s day is in respect of the entire land admeasuring 17 Gunthas. In the old record, the proceedings under section 32-G of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act were found and based thereon, both SDO and Tribunal concluded that tenant was shown in possession of the entire 3 wp8274-09 17 gunthas and that is evidenced by the mutation entry sanctioned in 1955. The Tahsildar did not assign any reasons for recording conclusion that the tenant is in possession of only half portion and not entire 17 gunthas. The SDO as also the Tribunal have relied upon such materials to record a finding of fact against the present petitioner. To my mind, this finding is not vitiated by any perversity or any error apparent on the face of record, warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed. No costs. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)