1 Ladda WRIT PETITION NO. 3829 OF 2011. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3829 OF 2011. Shri Parshuram Dattatray Kolhatkar and others ..Petitioners. Versus Prakash Keshav Kasar .. Respondent. Mr S.D.Patil i/by P.P.Jadhav and S.B.Borkar for the petitioners. Mr R.D. Suryawanshi for the respondent. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 28th September, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This writ petition arises out of the proceeding under Section 70 (b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“the Tenancy Act, 1948” for short) The respondent's application under the said provision was rejected by the Tahsildar and this order was confirmed by the Sub- Divisional Officer (S.D.O.). The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai (M.R.T.) at the instance of the respondent, however, remanded matter to the Tahsildar for fresh decision. 3. The Tahsildar as well as S.D.O. dismissed the respondent's 2 Ladda WRIT PETITION NO. 3829 OF 2011. application for the following reasons :- (i) Respondent did not remain present when the matter was called out. (ii) Respondent could not prove possession on the suit land. (iii)It is difficult to believe that the respondent could have cultivated the suit property which is situated at village Bhandarpule, District Ratnagiri, when the petitioner is staying at Ori. 4. Mr Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the MRT committed jurisdictional error. He submitted that the finding recorded by the Tahsildar and the S.D.O. could not have been interfered with. He lastly submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed. Mr Suryawanshi, however, supported the impugned order. 5. Having considered the submissions and having gone through the impugned order, I do not find any merit in the petition. The MRT found that the respondent's contention about possession on the suit land is supported by the Mutation Entry No.162, which is sanctioned in the year 1995. This Mutation Entry is taken out in pursuance of the Tahsildar's order dated 31.8.1996. The MRT further found that there are affidavits of three persons showing that the respondent is cultivating the suit land. This 3 Ladda WRIT PETITION NO. 3829 OF 2011. documentary evidence was not considered by the Tahsildar as well as the S.D.O. The respondent could not get an opportunity as he was absent on the date of hearing. The finding of the Tahsildar, which is confirmed by the S.D.O., can be termed as perverse in view of the evidence in the form of Mutation Entry No.162 and the affidavits of three persons mentioned above. The fact that the respondent is not resident of village where the suit land is situated, could not have been the basis to reject the petitioner's claim under Section 70 (b) of the Tenancy Act,1948. Mr Suryawanshi, at this stage, submitted that the distance between Bhandarpule and Ori is hardly 2/3 kms. Mr Patil submits that he is not aware about the distance. However, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement made by Mr Suryawanshi for the respondent. Learned Member of the Revenue Tribunal, in order to give fair chance, remanded the matter to the Tahsildar. In my view, by the impugned order substantial justice is done and, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is made clear that the Tahsildar shall decide the respondent's application independently, on its own merit and without being influenced by any observation made in this order. (RANJIT MORE, J.)