1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5737 OF 2009 Bhimrao s/o Kondiba Bhosle, Age: 74 years, Occ:Pensioner, R/o.Khokadpura, Aurangabad. District Aurangabad & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Ankush s/o Rangnath Khadke, Age: 37 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Shivaji Nagar, Barshi Road, Beed, Dist.Beed & Ors. .. Respondents ... Mr. Dhananjay Mane, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.R. Kedar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 8TH DECEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : By the present petition, the petitioners challenge the orders passed by the learned Tahasildar, Beed dated 23-01-2006, learned Deputy Collector, Beed dated 25-07-2008 and the 2 learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad dated 31-07-2009, thereby holding that deceased Rangnath Khadke through whom the respondents are claiming, was the protected tenant. 2. Mr. Dhananjay Mane, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that all the three Authorities have not taken into consideration that there was an exchange of lands between Rangnath Khadke and Keshavrao Deshmukh and the petitioners have purchased land from Rangnath Khadke. It is submitted that there was no material on record to show that Rangnath Khadke was protected tenant. He submits that even purchase certificate does not support the case of the respondents. 3. Mr. B.R. Kedar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the Authorities on the basis of material on record held that Rangnath Khadke was protected 3 tenant and as such, no interference is warranted. 4. The scope of interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, while Courts below have recorded concurrent findings, is very limited. Unless it is found that findings are recorded in perverse manner, it is not permissible for this Court to seat in appeal as extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. All the three Authorities have concurrently on the basis of material on record i.e. pahani patrak, khasara patrak and 7/12 extracts, so also oral and documentary evidence, arrived at the findings that deceased Rangnath Khadke was protected tenant. Authorities have also refused to believe the case of the petitioner regarding exchange of lands between Rangnath Khadke and Keshavrao Deshmukh, by observing that there was 4 no material on record to substantiate such transfer. 6. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is rejected. Needless to say that the interim relief granted earlier to continue henceforth. (B.R. GAVAI,J.) sut/DEC09/wp5737.09