: 1 : wp.8804.2010.sxw vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8804 OF 2010 Appalal Kedar Mulani & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. Shri Shivaji Gopal Patil & anr. ... Respondents Mr.Umesh Mankapure for the Petitioners CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE: JULY 1, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Mankapure, appearing for the petitioner. Perused the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that it is not vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record or perversity so as to call for interference in the writ jurisdiction. The learned member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has noted the facts right from the date when the application was made by the predecessors in title of the respondents claiming the relief u/s 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, That order was challenged by the Petitioner landlord in an appeal and the same was allowed. However, that order allowing the appeal was set aside in the revision wayback in 1971. The Sub-Divisional Officer was directed to make a fresh enquiry and upon fresh enquiry, he held the predecessors of the respondents as tenants. That order has not been : 2 : wp.8804.2010.sxw challenged and having gained finality and based on the position prevailing as of 1.4.1957, it is clear that the argument that the land is Inam land is of no avail and does not assist the petitioner landlord. In such circumstances, the decision rendered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is in accordance with law and it is based on the material placed on record. For all these reasons this is not a fit case for interference. 2. Petition is dismissed. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)