1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1600/2011 Parashram T. Borhade and anr. V/s. Sharadchandra B. Khatri and ors. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 26 , 2011 . Heard the learned counsels for the parties. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that, the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 under Section 120 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act 1958, is liable to be rejected as the petitioners had not claimed to be the tenants of the suit field in question though they had claimed that they were in possession of the field property, in view of the oral agreement of sale. They had not produced any documents before the Sub-Divisional Officer to show that they had a semblance of right in the property. There was no dispute about the fact that, the respondent nos. 1 to 4 were the owners of the suit property and the suits between the parties were not suits claiming title but were the suits filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for restoration of possession. The 2 Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal observed and rightly so, that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer could not have been found fault with, as the petitioners had not filed any documents before the Sub-Divisional Officer to claim right in the suit property and on the contrary the petitioners had admitted in their cross-examination that the copy of the Demand Draft was not filed on record. In the aforesaid set of facts, the authorities rightly rejected the case of the petitioners as there was nothing on record to show that the petitioners had a semblance of right in the suit property. The judgment in Spl. C. Appln. No. 383 of 1974, decided on 12.09.1979 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioners can not be made applicable to the facts of this case. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Punde