SRJ 1 wp-3766-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3766 OF 2010 Shri Prabhakar N. Barve (since deceased) through LRS- Smt. Prabhavi P. Barve & Others .. Petitioners V/s. Smt. Natlbai A. Karwal (since deceased) through LRS- Shri Jassein A. Karwal & Others .. Respondents. Shri A.G.Damle, for Petitioners. Shri R.T.Walawalkar, for Respondents. CORAM :R.V.MORE,J. DATE :4th AUGUST,2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The Petitioners are the landlords and the Respondents are the tenants in respect of the land in question. The Petitioners filed proceedings under section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act,1948 (herein after referred to as the said Act) for restoration of the possession of the said land, on the ground that the said land falls within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Vasai and secondly, the same is reserved SRJ 2 wp-3766-10.sxw for housing in the development plan of Vasai Municipal Corporation. In view of provisions of section 43(c) of the said Act, section 30 to 32(r) are not applicable to the land which falls within the limits of Municipal Corporation. Thus, the tenants of the land falling within limits of Corporation are not entitled to purchase the land under section 32-G of the said Act. However, they are entitled to remain in possession of the said land and landlord cannot seek possession under the provisions of section 29 of the said Act. So far as second ground for obtaining possession is concerned, the finding of the fact is recorded by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai that there is no separate notification under section 88(1)(b) of the said Act. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. 3. In the light of above observations, I do not find any error in the impugned order. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (R.V.MORE,J.)