1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1620/2001 Changdeo s/o Rangnath Marathe (Chavan) and ors. Petitioners V E R S U S Ashru Shrawan Bhill and others Respondents Shri S.S. Nirkhee, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.B.Kale, Advocate for the respondent -1 . CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 6 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. PER COURT :- 1. The petitioner/land lord is seeking an exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad on 28.02.2001 reversing the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pachora Division, Pachora on 18.06.1999. The respondent herein claims to be the tenant in respect of the disputed property. It is contended that father of the respondents was in possession of the property since 1953 onwards. After demise of the tenant, respondents being the legal heirs are possessing the property continuously till today. It is contended that the land in question came to be acquired for establishing industrial estate by M.I.D.C. The tenant presented an application to the agricultural land Tribunal i.e Tahasildar for 2 fixation of the price of agricultural land. Tenancy Tribunal, after issuing notices to the landlord was pleased to fix the price of the land by order dated 30.01.1999. 2. The order passed by the Tenancy Tahasildar was the matter of challenge before Sub-Divisional Officer, Pachora at the instance of petitioner- land lord, Sub Divisional Officer allowed the appeal. Revision was presented raising an exception to the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad. Revision application came to be allowed and order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pachora came to be reversed. 3. There are two objections raised by the petitioner one is in respect of applicability of provisions of 88 B of the Bombay Tenancy Act and second objection raised is in respect of issuance of notice to the landlord before directing the fixation of price. So far as objection raised by the petitioner on the basis of provisions of section 88-B is concerned, it is to be noted that prior the acquisition of the land by MIDC, there was already a statutory transfer by virtue of the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act in favour of the tenant. Therefore, it cannot be said that on account of issuance of order of reservation of the land in question for Industrial Estate purpose, provisions of tenancy act ceases to apply. The provision of section 88-B is not 3 applicable in the instant matter because the tenant is already declared deemed owner prior to acquisition for industrial purpose by virtue of statutory transfer of tenanted property. 4. So far as second objection raised by the petitioner is concerned the same has no substance as there is specific mention in the order passed by Agricultural land Tribunal that notice in respect of fixation of price was served on the landlord and land lord has also presented say opposing the request in respect of fixation of price. Considering all the relevant aspects, I am of the opinion that view adopted by the Tribunal is legal and correct and does not call for any interference in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition therefore stands rejected. ( R. M. BORDE, J. ) ..... aaa/1620.01