1 (SA99.11 with CAS225.11) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.99 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.225 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.99 OF 2011 Dattatraya Hari Aslekar .... Appellant. V/s 1. Nema Krishna Pagare (Dead) 2. Bhiwa Mhankall Bichukale & Ors .... Respondents. Mr. T.D. Deshmukh for the Appellant. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 5th August, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. 2. Appellant is the original Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed suit for possession from Defendant in respect of the suit property. According to Plaintiff, in 1963 Defendants had taken forcible possession of the suit land and the Mutation Entry was made after taking forcible possession. It is submitted that admittedly, he was the landlord of the suit premises and one Bhiwa was the tenant of the suit premises. According to Plaintiff, the said Bhiwa surrendered the premises to him in 2 (SA99.11 with CAS225.11) 1963. However, Defendant No.2 dispossessed the Plaintiff from the suit land and, therefore, he claimed possession of the suit land. Trial Court dismissed the suit and the lower Appellate Court confirmed the order of the Trial Court. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant that though Certificate under section 32-M was issued in favour of Defendant No.1 i.e. Respondent No.1 herein and he had become deemed purchaser by virtue of the order passed under section 32-G, the said Defendant No.1 could not have sold the said property to Defendant No.4. He submitted that the land was sold by registered sale deed dated 20/9/1989 and the permission to sell the land was obtained thereafter on 9/10/1989. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the said sale deed was null and void in view of the provisions of section 43 of B.T. & A.L. Act. He submitted that, therefore, the Appellant is entitled to get possession of the suit land. 4. In my view, the said submission made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant cannot be accepted. It is an admitted position that the order under section 32-G of the B.T. & A.L. Act was passed in favour of Defendant No.1 and certificate was issued in his favour under section 32-M after he had paid the purchase price of the suit land. Defendant No.1, therefore, had become owner of the suit land after the said order. Assuming that the said sale deed executed by him in favour of Defendant No.4 is not valid, even then the 3 (SA99.11 with CAS225.11) suit land would not revert back to the landlord and, therefore question of possession being handed over to the Appellant does not arise. No substantial question of law is raised in this second appeal. 5. Second Appeal is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)