1 LPAs 208,209 & 210/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Letters Patent Appeal No.208 of 2011 In Writ Petition No.3173 Of 2011 With Civil Application No.6908 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.208 of 2011 Ashok Pundlikrao Jagdhane. .. Appellant. Versus Ramesh Sakharam Jagdhane And Others. .. Respondents. -------- Shri. P.D. Bachate, Advocate for appellant. Shri. K.J. Ghute Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.3. -------- With Letters Patent Appeal No.209 of 2011 In Writ Petition No.3174 Of 2011 With Civil Application No.6909 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.209 of 2011 Ashok Pundlikrao Jagdhane. .. Appellant. Versus Meenabai Sahebrao Gaikwad And Others. .. Respondents. 2 LPAs 208,209 & 210/2011 -------- Shri. P.D. Bachate, Advocate for appellant. Shri. K.J. Ghute Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.3. -------- With Letters Patent Appeal No.210 of 2011 In Writ Petition No.3182 Of 2011 With Civil Application No.6910 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.210 of 2011 Ashok Pundlikrao Jagdhane. .. Appellant. Versus Sampat Shankar Jagdhane And Others. .. Respondents. -------- Shri. P.D. Bachate, Advocate for appellant. Shri. K.J. Ghute Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.3. --------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & T.V. NALAWADE,JJ. DATE 30 AUGUST 2011 3 LPAs 208,209 & 210/2011 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Additional Collector failed to conduct enquiry under the provisions of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act 1958. According to the appellant, he was in possession of part of the agricultural land and therefore he is entitled to raise objections and in absence thereof, the proceedings initiated for seeking permission to sell the land deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3) This issue was considered by the Additional Collector and thereafter the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Learned Single Judge by a reasoned order considered the objections raised by the appellant. Considering the concurrent findings reached by the authorities below and the material placed before the learned Single Judge the Court observed that there was no document to show that the findings reached were perverse. In absence of any jurisdictional error and perversity, the writ petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed. 4 LPAs 208,209 & 210/2011 4) The Tribunal observed that a civil suit has been filed by the appellant bearing Regular Civil Suit no.146 of 2010. The appellant has failed to produce any documentary evidence on record to show that he is in lawful possession in respect of part of the agricultural land. 5) Considering the lack of basic evidence on record in support of the contentions raised by the appellant, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders. We do not find any error or perversity in the same. The Letters Patent Appeals are devoid of merits, they are dismissed. All pending civil applications stand disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl