bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7301 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7301 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7301 OF 2008 Shri Sataba alias Balaku Ishwara Kumbhar ... Petitioner v/s Shri Dattu Narasu Raktade ... Respondent Mr.V.B.Rajure for the petitioner. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 23RD OCTOBER, 2008 23RD OCTOBER, 2008 23RD OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. This petition challenges the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pune on 6.12.2007, Additional Collector, Kolhapur on 30.6.1986 and the order of the Assistant Collector, Gadhinglaj passed on 31.5.1978 as well as the order passed by the Tahsildar. 2. The petitioner was recognised as the representative Watandar in the year 1951. The Sanadi land was re-granted to the petitioner on 31.3.1965 on a new and impartable tenure under Section 5(1) of the Bombay Inam Vatan Abolition Act, 1958. The respondent was cultivating the petitioner’s land. An enquiry was 2 instituted by the Tahsildar for restoration of the lands to the petitioner as the respondent was in possession of the lands as a tenant purchaser. The Tahsildar held that the respondent was a tenant and, therefore, dropped the enquiry. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadhinglaj, met with the same fate. The Assistant Collector also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner holding that the respondent is lawful holder of the land. The petitioner has thus failed right upto the Deputy Commissioner who has rejected the petitioner’s revision application by his order dated 6.12.2007. 3. In my view, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by all the authorities below. 4. Writ petition rejected.