SRJ 1 wp-3500-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3500 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3496 OF 2010 Shri Narottam P. Patil & Others .. Petitioners. V/s. Shri Manik J. Patil & Another .. Respondents. Shri S.G.Deshmukh i/b. Shri G.T.Kanchapurkar, for Petitioner in both the matters. Shri A.J.Kandarkar, for Respondent Nos.1A to 1H in both the matters. Shri S.G.Karandikar, for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in both the matters. CORAM :R.V.MORE,J. DATE :4th AUGUST,2010. P.C.:- 1 Heard Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Shri Kandarkar, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1A to 1H and Shri Karandikar, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5, in both the Writ Petitions. 2 Writ Petition No.3500 of 2010 arises out of 32-G proceedings and Writ Petition No.3496 of 2010 arises out SRJ 2 wp-3500-10.sxw of permission granted in favour of Respondent No.1 under sections 43 and 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (herein after referred to as the said Act ). 3 In the proceedings under section 32-G of the said Act, the land in dispute was sold to Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 thereafter applied for permission under sections 43 and 63 of the said Act to sell the suit land to Respondent Nos.2 to 5. This permission was opposed by the Petitioner on the various grounds. The S.D.O. however, granted permission to Respondent No.1 subject to various conditions including a condition that in case, there is dispute about the suit land in Civil Court, the permission to stand cancelled automatically.The Petitioner challenged the order passed under section 32-G by filing an appeal. The appeal, however, was dismissed. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed two separate revisions, one challenging order passed in Appeal arising out of 32-G proceedings and second challenging the permission granted under sections 43 and 63 in favour of Respondent No.1. Both the Revisions came to be dismissed by the common order and, therefore, above two Petitions are filed. 4 So far as 32-G proceedings is concerned, Mr. Deshmukh relied upon the genealogy given at page 45 in Writ Petition No.3496 of 2010 and contended that the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 are the descendants of Nama SRJ 3 wp-3500-10.sxw common ancestor and, therefore, both are entitled to purchase the suit land. Shri Karandikar on the contrary pointed out that Nathu S/o. Jeevan was tenant in respect of 5 acres of land and Respondent No.1 was tenant in respect of suit land. He further submitted that so far as Narottam is concerned, he is from branch of Vithal and, therefore, he has nothing to do with the tenancy of the suit land. 5 The lower authorities have recorded the concurrent findings that Nathu-the predecessor of Petitioner Nos.2 & 3, was tenant in respect of 5 acres of land. So far Petitioner No.1-Narottam is concerned, finding is recorded that his name was never recorded in the record of rights of the suit property and, therefore, he has nothing to do with the suit land for which Respondent No.1 s name was recorded. In the absence of any evidence, in my view, the revenue authority correctly overruled Petitioners claim in the suit land. 6 This takes me to consider the Petitioner s grievance about the permission in favour of Respondent No. 1 under sections 43 and 63 of the said Act. I have gone through the permission granted by S.D.O. which is annexed at Ex. D in Writ Petition No.3496 of 2010. Perusal of the same, makes it clear that Respondent No.1 was granted permission subject to certain terms and conditions. Condition No.3 postulates that in case there is dispute SRJ 4 wp-3500-10.sxw pending in the Civil Courts, permission would stand cancelled automatically. It is the contention of Mr.Deshmukh that when this permission was granted to Respondent No.1, in fact, there was dispute pending between Petitioner and Respondent No.1 in Civil Court and, therefore, this permission could not have been granted. The learned counsel for the Respondent in this regard submitted that this condition could not have been imposed by the S.D.O. I do not find any merit in the submission of Mr.Deshmukh that permission is illegal. The order granting permission is self explanatory. The land in question is sold out in pursuant of the said permission. The Petitioner can always challenge the transaction which was entered into pursuant to permission under sections 43 and 63. The Respondent No.1 is also at liberty to point out that the imposition of such condition is illegal. 7 In the light of the observations made above, I do not find any error in the impugned order, so as to enable me to exercise extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Writ Petition is dismissed. (R.V.MORE,J.)