1 WP 178.1992 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 178 OF 1992 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.S.S.Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.T.Shelke, Advocate for Resp. No.1-A/1 to 1-A/6. ............................ CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 28/07/2011 PER COURT : 1. The Tahsildar, Shevgaon vide Order dated 30/5/1974 held that one Aminuddin is the lawful tenant on the suit land and is entitled to purchase the suit land U/s 32 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [ For short, ‘ the Act of 1948 ’ ] on the tillers’ day. The Tahsildar also decided the purchase price and also directed that the Certificate U/s 32-M of the Act of 1948 be issued to him. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer in the year 1987. The said Appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The petitioner assailed the said Judgment before the M.R.T., Pune, who also dismissed the said Revision. 2 WP 178.1992 Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Mr. S.S. Choudhari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sub Divisional Officer and the M.R.T. have not considered the grounds of delay. They have taken very hyper technical approach in dismissing the Appeal on the ground of limitation. The physical disability should have been considered. According to the learned counsel, the substantive rights of the parties were being affected. The respondent could not have been declared as a tenant over the said property. 3. Mr. S.T. Shelke, the learned counsel for the respondent has tendered affidavit and submitted that the Certificate U/s 32-M of the Act of 1948 has been issued in favour of the respondent and the price fixed U/s 32-G of the Act of 1948 has been accepted by the petitioner. Not only that, but even the application filed by the petitioner U/s 29 of the Act of 1948 in the year 1957 for personal cultivation has also been dismissed by the tenancy authorities. The application of the petitioner for grant of Certificate U/s 88-C of the Act of 1948 was also rejected by the tenancy authorities on 23/1/1962. 3 WP 178.1992 4. Once the Certificate U/s 32-M of the Act of 1948 has been granted and the same has not been challenged, it has become conclusive. There is nothing on record to show that the said Certificate was challenged at any point of time nor any counter is on record to disbelieve the averment of the respondent that the purchase price fixed U/s 32-G of the Act of 1948 has been accepted by the petitioner. 5. Even the authorities while dismissing the Appeal and Revision have considered that the Appeal was filed before the Sub Divisional Officer after 16 years and there is no explanation for such delay. 6. For all the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. The Rule is discharged. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 178.1992