1 WP-593/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 593 OF 2010 Alimiya A.Rahiman Firfire (deceased) and ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. Inusmiya Abdul Rahiman Janjirkar and ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Rajeev Patil, Senior Counsel i/by A. S. Kulkarni for the Petitioners. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 1st October, 2010. P.C. :- 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. A reference was made by the Civil Court to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for determination of an issue of tenancy on the basis of the plea of the tenancy of the first respondent. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal accepted the plea of the tenancy and held that the first respondent is a tenant. The said order has been confirmed in appeal as well as in revision application preferred by the petitioners before the Maharashtra Land Revenue Tribunal. 2 The submission of the learned counsel appearing 2 WP-593/10 for the petitioners is that apart from the fact that there was no proper opportunity given to the petitioners by the Tahsildar to contest the matter, an application under Section 70(b) made by the first respondent earlier was rejected by the Tahsildar by order dated 25th July, 1991. He submitted that this aspect has not been considered by the authorities. 3 I have considered the submissions. The finding of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal in the impugned order is that on the basis of an order passed under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 passed on 2nd November, 1963, mutation entry was made in the name of the first respondent as the agricultural tenant and the appeal preferred by the present petitioners against the mutation entry has been dismissed. Perusal of the memorandum of the appeal preferred against the order of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal shows that the petitioners did not dispute that an order was passed under Section 70(b) holding that the 1st Respondent was a tenant but contended that the said order was passed without service of notice to the petitioners and thus 1st Respondent was not entitled to relief claimed. It was submitted that the mutation entry made on the basis of the said order is not legal. 3 WP-593/10 4 However, there is a finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Court as well as Agriculture Lands Tribunal that against the mutation entry, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners and the said appeal has been dismissed. In view of the said earlier order of declaration of tenancy under Section 70(b), the issue of tenancy has been answered in favour of the first respondent. Reliance placed by the petitioners on the subsequent order of the year 1991 may not help them as by the said order, the application made under Section 70(b) of the said Act was dismissed for non prosecution. 5 Hence, it is not possible to interfere in the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities. Hence, writ petition is rejected. Judge