1 SSK/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4858 OF 2010 Vitthal Haribahu Sathe ....Petitioner Versus Mr. Narayan Mahadev Date & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. G. S. Godbole i/b. Mr. Ashok Tajane, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 1st JULY, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the application of Respondent Nos. 16 to 30 thereby impleading them in appeal filed by the Petitioner. 3. The Petitioner claims to be a tenant in the suit land and therefore, he filed proceedings under section 70 (b) and 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 before Tahasildar. The Tahasildar allowed the Petitioner’s application partly to the extent of 1 acre 2 out of the suit property. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 15- Landlords preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Petitioner also preferred cross appeal being aggrieved partly by the order of the Tahasildar. In both the appeals, the Respondent Nos. 16 to 30 preferred an application for impleading them as party-respondents. These Respondents claimed rights in the suit property in their capacity as legal heirs of the original tenant- Narayan Namdeo Sathe. There is no dispute that the Respondents are claiming their tenancy rights through Narayan Namdeo Sathe. The question remains, whether the Respondent Nos. 16 to 30 are legal descendants of Narayan Namdeo Sathe. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer perused the genealogy filed by Respondent Nos. 16 to 30 and was satisfied that these Respondents are descendants of original tenant- Narayan Namdeo Sathe and therefore impleaded them as party- respondents in the appeals. 4. Mr.Godbole, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that his intitial application under section 32G read with section 70 was rejected by Tahasildar. Thereafter, he filed an appeal and in this appeal, the matter was remanded back and Tahasildar after de-novo inquiry declared that the Petitioner is entitled to purchase land to the extent of 1 acre. Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that during all these proceedings the Respondent Nos. 16 to 30 have not come forward and at 3 this belated stage they cannot intervene in the appeals filed by the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1 to 15. This submission is without merit, as delay will not defeat the right of Respondent Nos. 16 to 30 to intervene in the proceedings, especially when prima-facie they are found to be descendants of the original tenant-Narayan Namdeo Sathe. The Respondent Nos. 16 to 30 in the above circumstances are necessary parties and the learned Sub-Divisional Officer rightly impleaded them in the appeals filed by the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1 to 15. I do not find any error in the impugned order so as to enable me to interfere in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (R. V. MORE, J.)