*1* wp.48.11.929.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.48 OF 2011 Madhav Bhagwant Shringarpure and others. ..Petitioners -Versus- Mahadeo Raghoji Bhujbal and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar i/b Mr.S.M.Kamble, for the Petitioners. Mr.D.S.Sawant with Mr.R.B.Parab, for the Respondent Nos.1(1), 1(3), 2(1), 3 to 5 and 8. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 07th June, 2011. P.C.: 1 By this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the concurrent findings rendered by the authorities and the Tribunal under the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Respondent No.1, claiming the tenancy rights in the subject land, made an application for fixation of purchase price under Section 32G of the B.T.A.L. Act. That application was made on 15.10.1990. The Petitioners’ predecessor is landlord. In the meanwhile, the proceedings for acquisition of the land were initiated for New Bombay Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Panvel made the award. Before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the land owner and the tenant raised the dispute, therefore, the reference was made to the District Court, Alibag under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was registered as Reference No.23/1982. The Petitioners before me having contested the claim and the Respondents submitting that they are entitled to receive entire amount of compensation as they are deemed purchasers, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel made necessary reference and the issue was referred to the Tahasildar, Panvel *2* wp.48.11.929.sxw under Section 85A of the B.T.A.L. Act. The application under Section 32G as well as the reference were decided together. Against the order passed by the Tahasildar allowing the application fixing the purchase price, so also, answering the reference in favour of the Respondents, the appeal came to be filed bearing Tenancy Appeal No.38/1994. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 08.10.2008 and that is how the Revision Application No.481/B/2008 came to be preferred which has been also dismissed by the impugned order dated 28.01.2010 by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. 2 Mr.Khandeparkar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submits that the Courts below have failed to take note of and deal with the contentions raised by the Petitioners which go to the root of the matter. According to him, the argument was that there was mutation entry bearing No.2879 which was produced on record and which evidences that the Respondents’ predecessor did not pay rent, therefore, the Tahasildar took possession of the land and handed over the same to the Petitioners. A copy of this Mutation Entry was produced, but the argument in that behalf has not been dealt with. Mr.Khandeparkar further submits that the Courts below did not consider another argument which has been canvassed namely that the lands fell in Municipal limits, therefore, there was no question of any proceedings under Section 32G being initiated in that regard. Inviting my attention to Section 43C, he submitted that Sections 31 to 32R are inapplicable to any area under the Town Planning Scheme under the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 32G cannot be initiated. According to him, both these contentions go to the root of the matter and therefore, the impugned orders are wholly illegal and are required to be set aside. *3* wp.48.11.929.sxw 3 On the other hand, Mr.Sawant, the learned counsel for the contesting Respondents, supported the impugned orders. He submitted that both contentions have been dealt with by the authorities and they have concurrently found that there is no substance in the same. Resultantly, the petition be dismissed. 4 With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have perused the impugned orders. To my mind, there is no substance in the contentions of Mr.Khandeparkar for more than one reason, namely, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in a reasoned order has referred to the basic facts and has found that as on tillers’ day, in this case, the Respondents were in possession of the property. The discussion in paragraph No.6 of the impugned order would go to show that the rights of the Respondents as tenants have been already adjudicated and decided. The record of Tenancy Case No.9/1962 was produced and it has been perused by the learned President and he has found from perusal of the same that the landlord was one Madhav Shringarpure and the name of one Kisan Bhujbal was recorded as tenant by Mutation Entry No.1533 certified on 14.03.1948. His name appears to have been removed in 1956, but again in the year 1967 his name is recorded as tenant. Thus, the changes appear to have been made because of the earlier litigation. In such circumstances and when the Courts have concurrently found that the possession of the tenant continued as on tillers’ day, then, the only subsisting right that the Petitioners had in law was to appear at the proceedings under Section 32G for fixation of purchase price. Those proceedings together with the reference from the competent Civil Court were decided together. It has been held concurrently that the possession of tenant on the tillers’ day is undisputed. Once that is found to be substantiated even otherwise by the tenants by production of the relevant *4* wp.48.11.929.sxw record and material then the finding rendered is in consonance therewith and cannot be said to be perverse. Further, the argument that Mutation Entry No.2879 shows that the possession was taken back from the tenants, is not at all well founded. The Courts below have referred to the mutation entry specifically and also referred to the earlier proceedings. Once the status as tenant has been confirmed right upto the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation, there is no reason to discard these findings. Further, the argument that the land fell within the Municipal limits, therefore, no proceedings under Section 32G could have been initiated and decided, is also considered by the M.R.T.. The learned President has carefully scrutinized the entire record and has found that the land was falling within village Podi and that was included in Municipal limits from 25.05.1964. Inclusion thereof in Municipal limits will not affect the status of the Respondent’s predecessor as well as the Respondents as tenants because that crystallizes in terms of the BTAL Act on 01.04.1957 i.e. tillers’ day. In such circumstances, re-appreciation of the material on record is not permissible. The Courts below have applied correct legal principles and concluded that the subsequent inclusion of the land does not affect the proceedings under Section 32G and such proceedings could have been very well initiated and concluded. Reliance, therefore, placed on the decision of the Supreme Court is also apposite. 5 In such circumstances, I do not find any error apparent or perversity disclosed in the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below. For all these reasons, the petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)