-: 1 :- wp- 1769/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1769 OF 2010 Ramesh Mahadeo Sonalkar & Anr. ..Petitioners. Versus The Tahasildar& Others. ..Respondents. Mr. S. G. Karandikar i/b Mr. S. S. Kanetkar for the petitioners. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : July 29, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr.S.G. Karandikar, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petition arises out from the proceedings under Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [for short “the said Act”]. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the original landlord. They filed proceedings under section 70(b) of the said Act seeking declaration that the respondents are not tenants in the suit land. The respondents also filed proceedings under section 32-G of the said Act for fixation of the purchase price claiming to be tenant in the suit land. The tehsildar and ALT dismissed the petitioner application filed u/s 70(b) and fixed the purchase price in the proceedings u/s 32-G initiated by the respondents. This order is confirmed by the SDO and MRT. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the grand-father srp -: 2 :- wp- 1769/2010 of the petitioners purchased the suit property in the year 1909 from one Chaubal and his name was recorded in the ownership column in the year 1964. He submitted that the lower courts wrongly relied upon Mutation Entry No.271, which was effected much after the tillers day and therefore on that basis the respondents cannot claim tenancy of the suit property. 3. I have perused a copy of extract of Mutation Entry tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusal of the same discloses that the same was recorded in September 1957. It further shows that the predecessor-in-title of the respondents, Krishna were cultivating the suit property. Thus, it is clear that the respondents’ predecessor-in-title were cultivating the suit property prior to the tillers day. The name of Krishna and subsequently the name of his widow was shown as tenant in the record of rights of the suit property. Though the name of grand father of the petitioners was recorded in the ownership column of the suit property in the year 1964, he did not object to the name of predecessor- in-title of the respondents as tenant in the suit property. For the first time in the year 1992, proceedings under section 70(b) of the said Act came to be filed. In my opinion, those proceedings taken out by the petitioners are correctly dismissed. Regarding proceedings u/s 32-G, concurrent findings by all the three authorities have been recorded that -: 3 :- wp- 1769/2010 the predecessor-in-title of the respondents were cultivating the suit land on tillers day and thereafter also and therefore the purchase price was rightly fixed. I do not find any error in the impugned order so as to enable me to interfere with the same in my writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)