SSK/952 1 WP.10181.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10181 OF 2010 Ashok Ragho Jadhav ....Petitioner Versus Veeramati Harkishan Dalal & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. A. R. Pitale, learned counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 20th APRIL, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Pitale, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petition arises out of proceedings under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1949(in short “the Act”). The petitioner’s application under Section 32 G of the Act for fixation of purchase price came to be rejected by Addl. Tahasildar and this order, thereafter, was confirmed by the SDO and MRT. The petitioner claims tenancy through predecessor in title – Radhabai. It is not disputed that the said Radhabai died in the year 1956. Thus, she was not in possession of the property in question on the Tillars Day. In these circumstances, the petitioner also cannot claim the tenancy. The petitioner relied upon various SSK/952 2 WP.10181.10 documents. These documents are considered by the Lower Authorities and it was held that same are not sufficient to prove the petitioner’s tenancy. Concurrent findings of fact in this regard are recorded by all the three authorities. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)