1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4721 OF 2011. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 18.07.2011. 1. Heard Mr. A.G. Talhar, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The proceedings for possession were initiated against the present petitioners which came to be allowed. The petitioners handed over the possession of the property to the Respondents in the year 2003. Thereafter, the Respondents initiated proceedings for mesne profits. The Cooperative Court allowed the said petition granting mesne profit at the rate of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per year from 28.4.1976 and at the rate of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty 2 thousand) per year from 28.4.1986 till 1.4.2003. The petitioners preferred appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 3. Mr.Talhar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no proof that the land in question is an irrigated land nor the cash crops were taken by the petitioners from the said land. The petitioners are not benefited with the said amount. When the petitioners have not been benefited of the said amount, the petitioners can not be made liable to pay the same as mesne profit. The land can not yield such an income. The amount awarded is too exorbitant and against the evidence on record. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments. Both the Courts on appreciation of evidence have come to the conclusion that the crops of sugarcane, Mug, Maka etc. were being taken. The details of the production of crops has been discussed. It has also come on record that the irrigation facility was available to the said land. 3 While considering the mesne profit, it is not the income which the petitioners have derived has to be considered but the income which could have been earned by the person who has been kept out of possession has to be considered. The Courts below have properly considered the said issued. The view taken by the Courts below is a possible and plausible. The Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.18.07.2011. asp/office/wp4721.11 4