1 wp3173.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3173 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3174 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3182 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. Y.B. Bolkar holding for Mr. P.D. Bachate, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.J. Ghute-Patil, A.G.P. for respondent no. 3. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 25th APRIL, 2011 Heard Advocate Mr. Y.B. Bolkar holding for Mr. P.D. Bachate for petitioner in respective Petition and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3. Advocate Mr. Bolkar contends that the petitioner has got independent interest in suit land and is in possession thereof. That status of the petitioner has not been looked into and permission to sell has been given. It is argued that same is in violation of the provisions of Bombay Inferior Village Vatans Abolition Act, 1958. 2. With the assistance of learned Counsel, I have 2 wp3173.11 perused the order of Additional Collector, Aurangabad dated 19.04.2010. Additional Collector has specifically found that the present petitioner could not explain his interest in suit land and could not also produce any document to substantiate his contention that land with land holder was in excess of ceiling limits. He could not also produce anything to show his possession. The permission to sell was therefore granted to applicant- Ramesh who is respondent no.1 before this Court. The petitioner challenged that order in appeal before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has considered the contentions as raised. It has also looked into the provisions of Section 5(3) of the above mentioned 1958 Act and as there were three appeals at the instance of the petitioner, by common judgment but then after recording separate reasons, it has upheld the order of the Additional Collector. 3. These concurrent findings are sought to be assailed before this Court. No document to show that findings reached concurrently are perverse, are placed with the petition. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. Hence, Petitions are rejected. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp3173.11