1 wp-2241-92 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2241 OF 1992. Shri Rangnath Malhari Patil since deceased by his heirs and legal representatives and others. ....Petitioners. Versus Nagnath alias Tuljaram Manohar Patil since deceased by his heirs and legal representatives. ...Respondents. Miss S.M. Dandekar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri Ajay S. Gadkari, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 23rd August, 2011. P.C.:- 1. Writ petition arises out of proceeding under Section 32G of 2 wp-2241-92 the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Tenancy Act” for short). The dispute is about land Gat No.1/9, admeasuring about 32 Ares, situate at village Bale, North Sholapur, District Sholapur, (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”). The respondent is, admittedly, the owner of the suit property and the original petitioner Rangnath claims tenancy of the suit property. In the year 1978, the petitioner preferred an application under section 32G of the Tenancy Act, before the Additional Tahsildar, North Sholapur, for fixation of the purchase price. The petitioner-Rangnath did not remain present, and, therefore, the Additional Tahsildar passed an order on 18.5.1978 thereby declaring purchase of the suit property ineffective. This order was carried up to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune (M.R.T.) and the M.R.T. remanded matter to the Tahsildar with direction to hear application under Section 32-G of the Tenancy Act filed by the petitioner afresh. The Additional Tahsildar, thereafter, by an order dated 21st February, 1990 fixed the purchase price. The respondents challenged this order in appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Sholapur Division, Sholapur. He dismissed the appeal of the respondents on 30.8.1990. The respondents thereafter preferred revision before the M.R.T. The M.R.T. Pune disposed of the revision application by order an dated 24th February, 1992 whereby the respondents’ revision was allowed. Orders passed by the Additional Tahsildar and the S.D.O. came to be set 3 wp-2241-92 aside with declaration that purchase of the suit property has become ineffective. This order is challenged by filing the present writ petition. 2. The learned Member of the Tribunal considered the holding of the original petitioner Rangnath as on tiller’s day. The learned Member of the Tribunal in this regard relied on Mutation Entry No. 1639 which shows that Rangnath got in all 41 acres and 22 Ares in partition between himself and his brother, which was effected subsequent to tiller’s day. Subsequent Mutation Entry No. 2493 shows that Rangnath got in all nine pieces of land including Gat No. 88/1, which now stands in the name of Vijaykumar Navale. Thus, land Gat No.88/1 was also belonged to Rangnath. The finding is recorded by the learned Member of the Tribunal that Gat No.88/1 is perennially irrigated land and it admeasures about 1 hectare and 10 gunthas. The learned Member of the Tribunal, therefore, included this perennially irrigated land in the then holding of petitioner- Rangnath and came to the conclusion that Rangnath’s holding is more than ceiling limit i.e. 48 acres. 4. Under Section 32A of the Tenancy Act, a tenant is deemed to have purchased land under Section 32 in the case of a tenant, who holds land as owner below the ceiling area, such part of the land only as will raise his holding to the extent of the ceiling area. Since finding of fact is recorded that Rangnath – the original petitioner, was holding the land more than 48 acres, he was rightly held not entitled to purchase any land under Section 32G of the 4 wp-2241-92 Tenancy Act. The purchase was correctly held to be ineffective. 5. I do not find any error in the impugned order so as to enable this Court to interfere with it in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is without any merit and same is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs. (RANJIT MORE, J.)