vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6558 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6558 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6558 OF 2008 Anaji Dhanaji Mhatre & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. Madhukar Prabhakar Juvekar ... Respondent Mr.S.A. Sawant for Petitioners Ms.Teja Katdare for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 15, 2008 OCTOBER 15, 2008 OCTOBER 15, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.Ten/295-B/2001. By this judgment and order, the Tribunal has held that the tenants i.e. the petitioners herein, had sought to exercise their rights under 32F(1A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act r/w section 31 after a period of 14 years. The Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner’s right to purchase the land was extinguished because of the non-compliance of section 32F. 2. The learned advocate for the petitioners sought to rely on Sudam Ganpat Kutwal v/s. Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar, (2006) 7 SCC 200 (2006) 7 SCC 200 (2006) 7 SCC 200 where the Supreme Court has distinguished the ratio of its earlier judgment in the : 2 : case of Appa Narsappa Magdum (D) through LRs v/s. Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar & Ors., (1999) 4 SCC 443. (1999) 4 SCC 443. (1999) 4 SCC 443. The Supreme Court in Appa Narsappa Magdum’s case (supra), has held that a tenant of a widowed landlady must exercise his right to purchase the land under 32F within one year of the landlady’s death and failure to do so, would extinguish his rights to purchase the land. In the case of Sudam Ganpat Kutwal (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that since the widowed landlady had terminated the tenancy while she was alive and had taken possession of a part of the tenanted land section 31(3) would and consequently 32F would not apply. 3. In the present case, the facts are not the same as were obtaining in Sudam Ganpat Kutwal’s case (supra) and therefore, the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal need not be disturbed as it has followed the judgment in Magdum’s case (supra). 4. Hence, petition is rejected.