1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7173 OF 2008 Mahadeo Soma Bhondkar .. Petitioner Vs Ganpat Ragho Mokal and ors .. Respondents Mr.S.D.Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.R.Rege i/b S.M.Railkar, for Respondent nos 1 to 4. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 18/08/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 8.9.2008 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai in the Revision Application filed by the respondents-landlords. The operative portion of the order passed by the MRT reads thus; “1. The revision application preferred by the land owners is allowed. The order dated 23.4.2001 passed by District Rehabilitation Officer to set aside the order of Tahsildar by allowing Tenancy/Appeal/27/99 is quashed and set aside. The order dated 17.11.1997 passed by Tahsildar Panvel rejecting application under section 70(b) of B.T & A.L. Act is restored. Record and Proceeding of the courts below be sent back forthwith. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Parties be informed accordingly.” T 2 3. These proceedings arise from an application under section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (for short, “B.T. & A.L. Act”) instituted by the petitioner-tenant. The application was rejected by Tahsildar vide his order dated 27.7.1983. Against the order of Tahsildar, an appeal preferred by the petitioner-tenant was dismissed. The petitioner, thereafter, carried the matter in revision before the MRT, which allowed the revision application and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar once again, vide order dated 16.11.1997, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under section 70(b). In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the District Rehabilitation Officer allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to Tahsildar for fresh enquiry vide order dated 23.4.2001. That judgment and order of the District Rehabilitation Officer, Raigad was challenged in the revision by the respondents-landlords before the Tribunal. The order dated 8.9.2008 passed by the MRT is impugned in this petition. 2. Mr Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal committed grave error of law in reappreciating the evidence on record. He submitted that if the MRT was convinced that the 3 order of remand was wrong, it ought to have remanded the matter to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal afresh on merits. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of this court in Chandrakant Sadanand Bartakke Vs Smt Parvatibai namdeo Nakhate and ors, 2003(1) Mh.L.J. 1005. It is true that the MRT is not expected to reappreciate evidence on record to arrive at a different finding of fact. In the present case, the MRT has not arrived at a different finding of fact, as tried to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, in my opinion, the MRT has not committed any error of law in setting aside the order passed by the District Rehabilitation Officer and affirming theorder of Tahsildar. It appears that the parties were heard at length before the MRT and that no prayer for remand was made by either of the parties before it. These proceedings are pending since last about 25 years. From perusal of the judgment of the MRT and more particularly paragraphs 5 and 6 thereof, it is clear that the MRT has considered the order of remand in proper perspective. It has pointed out the errors committed by the appellate authority in remanding the matter and has rightly confirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in Chandrakant 4 Bartakke’s case, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, is of no avail to the petitioner. Moreover, it appears that the petitioner, relied upon two mutation entries, namely, Mutation entry nos 1003 and 4386. Insofar as mutation entry no.1003 is concerned, there is no dispute that it was never certified. This is the only mutation entry on which the petitioner relies upon to contend that he is a tenant in the suit land. Similarly, insofar as the mutation entry no.4386 is concerned, that entry was challenged in appeal and in the appeal it was set aside. Moreover, there is ample material on record to show that the petitioner’s grand father used to pay Rs.1000/- to the landlord for cutting and taking away grass grown in the land. In view thereof, the tenancy authorities below have held that the provisions of the B.T. & A. L. Act are not applicable. It would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant observations made by the MRT in paragraph 6 which read thus; “6. As regards the merit of the case as referred above the original mutation entry no. 1003 recorded in the name of Hiru Bhondkar was a pencil entry. This entry was never certified by any authority. Hiru Bhondkar died long back and no record was produced to show that after death of Hiru his son Soma cultivated this land as a tenant. The oral evidence of applicant and his paternal uncle recorded before Tahsildar makes it clear that the land was never cultivated by applicant’s father Soma. Their admission also makes it 5 clear that the grand father Hiru Bhondkar used to pay Rs.1000/- to land owner for cutting and taking away the grass grown in the land. In 1982 first time the present opponent got sanctioned M.E.No.4386 showing that on the death of his father Soma Bhondkar, his sons and daughters inherited his rights. But this entry also came to be set aside in appeal. This entry also not makes reference to the tenancy rights in favour of applicant or his father. As such the documentary evidence do not disclose the cultivation of the land at any time by Hiru, his son Somu or the present opponent. The oral evidence is not satisfactory to establish the cultivation of the land under tenancy rights. Admittedly the land is in possession of the present applicants. They have purchased the property long back under registered sale deed executed in 1967 since then they are in possession of the property. The opponent could not establish paymet of rent, lease agreement or his possession over the property, so learned Tahsildar has rightly rejected application under section 70(b) by his order dated 20.11.1997. there was no reason to set aside this order by District Rehabilitation Officer, Raigad in appeal No.27/99. Learned Appellate Court again tried to place reliance on M.E.No.1003 in support of tenancy right of opponent. He was not justified to rely upon that entry which was never certified by any authority and which was a pencil entry. The order of District Rehabilitation Officer, Raigad is found unjustified and based on no evidence. Hence, this order needs to be set aside by allowing the revision application and restore the order of learned Tahsildar.” 4. Considering the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below and considering that there is sufficient 6 material on record to sustain those findings and considering extremely limited jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to disturb the findings of fact, in my opinion, the writ petition fails and dismissed as such. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)