-: 1 :- wp 3695/98 – IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3695 OF 1998 Bhimrao Tukaram Chambar & Ors. ..Petitioners. Versus Mahadev Govind Chambar & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. G. S. Godbole i/b Mr. Nitin Muley and S. S. Kanetkar for the petitionrs. Mr. Hemant Ghadigoankar i/b Mr. Madhav Jamdar for respondent nos. 1B to 1D. Mr. Harish R. Pawar for respondent nos. 2(a), (b) & (g). Mr. Pratap Patil for respondent nos. 2D(1). Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : July 27, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petition arises from the proceedings under section 32­G of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The lands in dispute are Survey No. 195, i.e., new Gat no. 326 and Survey No.248, i.e., new Gat No. 393. Admittedly, the predecessor­in­title of the petitioner was tenant in the suit land and the predecessor­in­title of the respondent was landlord. The proceedings mentioned above came to be filed by the petitioner for fixation of purchase price. The tehsildar fixed the purchase price in respect of Gat No.326, however in respect of Gat No.393, srp -: 2 :- wp 3695/98 – tehsildar refused to fix the purchase price since the purchase in respect of this land was held ineffective in the year 1961. The petitioner tenant filed two appeals, one against the refusal to fix purchase price in respect of Gat No.393, and second challenging the order of 1961 by which the purchase was held ineffective. The respondent landlord also filed an appeal challenging fixation of purchase price in respect of Gat No.326. Petitioners’ appeals came to be dismissed and respondent’s appeal was allowed. These orders were challenged by the petitioner by filing revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal [for short “MRT”]. By the impugned order, MRT dismissed the said revision. 3. The order dated 10th January 1961 is referred by SDO as well as by MRT. A photocopy of the said order is not annexed to the petition, however, learned counsel for the respondent tendered the same in Court today. Perusal of the said order discloses that the the predecessor­in­title of the petitioner showed unwillingness to purchase both the above lands. The statement accordingly came to be recorded and purchase was held ineffective. The petitioners have challenged this order of 1961 after the lapse of 50 years. I find that the SDO has rightly dismissed the petitioner’s appeal in this regard. In the light of the order of Competent Authority passed in the year 1961, making purchase of above lands by the tenant ineffective, it is not open for the petitioner to file fresh -: 3 :- wp 3695/98 – proceedings under section 32­G of the BT&AL Act. The SDO and MRT have approached the matter from correct point of view. I do not find any merit in the petition and same is therefore dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)