*1* wp.1520.10.929.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1520 OF 2010 Ratnakar Sakharam Sable and another. ..Petitioners -Versus- Sitaram Khema Kulye and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.S.A.Sawant, for the Petitioners. Mr.S.M.Railkar, for the Respondent No.1. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 19th July, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard both sides. By this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are questioning the orders of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The order that has been passed and questioned by the Petitioners is delivered in Tenancy Revision No. 77/B/2006. 2 The contention raised before me by Mr.Sawant, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, is that the Respondent No.1 (Sitaram Khema Kulye) filed an application claiming a declaration under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the landlord (Janardhan Padhye) expired. Despite the landlord having been expired, the inquiry proceeded, the Tenancy Avval Karkun & Tahasildar concluded the proceedings and made an order in favour of the Respondent No.1. The proceedings having been conducted and concluded against the dead person, the order passed therein will not bind the heirs of the said *2* wp.1520.10.929.sxw Janardhan or in any event the parties like the Petitioners who are subsequent purchasers of the lands from Janardhan. 3 The next contention is that if the rights of the Respondent No. 1 (Sitaram Kulye) have fructified allegedly on the tillers day and there being no justification for him to make an application in the year 1996, the proceedings instituted at his instance should have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. 4 It is not possible to accept both contentions. The application under Section 70(b) of the BTAL Act was filed by the Respondent No.1 (Sitaram Kulye) against the deceased Janardhan on the basis that the Respondent No.1 (Sitaram Kulye) is cultivating the land for past more than 40 years and he was in possession thereof and cultivating the same as on tillers day. He has planted trees and they are mango, cashew nut etc.. The lands being agricultural lands, the attempt was to take away the rights of the Respondent No.1 (Sitaram Kulye) and that is why he claimed the declaration. From the order of the Tahasildar, it appears that it is an admitted position that the said Janardhan was alive during the pendency of these proceedings and the hearing was held on several dates. His statement was recorded on 19.08.1997. After this statement was recorded, even the Respondent No.1 was also cross-examined. In these circumstances, the conclusion of the Tribunal that for technical lapse, the parties should not suffer, deserves to be accepted. Even if there was lapse on the part of the said Sitaram Kulye in not bringing the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Janardhan on record and having found that the inquiry has been concluded, the orders have been passed and since the date of death is after the statement was recorded and cross- examination was concluded; between that date till the date of judgment, the matter proceeded, then, not much capital can be made of this lapse *3* wp.1520.10.929.sxw and particularly when the deceased was not resident of the subject village. 5 The second contention that the application was barred because of inordinate delay and latches, is also without any substance as the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has found as a matter of fact that the Respondent No.1 is tenant prior to 01.04.1957. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in its revisional jurisdiction could not have questioned these aspects as it became apparent that the cause of action for seeking the said declaration is on account of the events which took place in the year 1995. The Court below has found that the attempts were made to question the status that is why the Respondent No.1 had to approach the Tahasildar seeking the declaration. The record shows that till the year 1995 the deceased Janardhan (landlord) was accepting the rent from the Respondent No.1. It is only thereafter the attempts were made to question his status. In such circumstances and when at the instance of the deceased Janardhan, no interference was called for in the revisional jurisdiction which is not to be equated with that of the appeal, at the instance of the present Petitioners who are admittedly subsequent purchasers; the findings of fact requires no interference. The same are consistent with the material produced and cannot be said to be perverse. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)