Wp 7399 of 09 1 SSK/33 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7399 OF 2009 Pundlik Shankar Bhagwat ....Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Anilkumar Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 15TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. Cardozo, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. The predecessor in title of Respondent No.5 purchased the property in dispute under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. This property was purchased by the Petitioner by sale deed on 16th December, 1983. The said transaction was in violation of provisions of section 43 of the B.T. and A.L.Act. The Tahsildar initiated the suo-motu inquiry in the year 1985 and after hearing the Petitioner the above said transaction was held invalid and the land in Wp 7399 of 09 2 dispute was forfeited to the Government. This order was passed on 8th August, 1985. 3. The Petitioner after lapse of a period of 15 years preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer which was dismissed on 23rd September, 2005. The Petitioner thereafter moved the Divisional Commissioner and the State of Maharashtra. Revenue Department but he could not succeed. There is no dispute that the Petitioner or the Respondent No.5 did not obtain any permission under section 43 of the B.T. and A.L. Act prior to entering into the transaction of sale deed. The provisions of section 43 of the B.T. and A.L. Act are mandatory and therefore, the Petitioner was duty bound to obtain prior permission and in the absence of said permission, the Tahsildar rightly invalidated the said transactions and forfeited the said land to the Government. The Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer against the said order after a period of 15 years. The Petitioner could not give sufficient cause for the delay of 15 years. In these circumstances, I am not inclined 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. (R. V. MORE, J.)