IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 2035 OF 1991 WRIT PETITION NO. 2035 OF 1991 WRIT PETITION NO. 2035 OF 1991 Gopal Khemaji Sanadi ..Petitioner. Vs. Shankar Sambhu Khupire & Ors ..Respondents. Mr S. V. Sadavarte, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr N. J. Patil, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr V. B. Rajure, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 (A), 3a (1) 2(A), 2(B). CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 19th January,2009. DATED: 19th January,2009. DATED: 19th January,2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents. Perused petition. 2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.6.1990 passed by the Member, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Bombay, camp at Kolhapur, (M.R.T. for short), whereby Revision Application No. MRT/KP/129 of 1986 filed by Shri Gopal Khemaji Sanadi (Kambale) - original applicant/petitioner was dismissed and the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Karvir Division Kolhapur (S.D.O.), dated 13.12.1985 is confirmed. 3. The factual matrix reveal that the Petitioner is owner of lands bearing No. 164/2, 281/1, 291/1 and 165/2 situated at Shiroli, taluka Hatkanangle, District Kolhapur. In the year 1975, the Petitioner filed Application No. 36 of 1975 before the Court of Tenancy, Awal Karkun (the Trial Court) for possession of the above lands from the Respondents on the ground of tenancy. The Trial Court vide its order dated 31.5.1976 allowed the said application directing the Respondents to hand over possession to the original Petitioner (since deceased). 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents preferred Appeal No. 145 of 1976 and by an order dated 31.5.1976 the Appellate Court was pleased to reject the same. The Respondents filed revision being No.MRT/KP/173 of 1981 before the M.R.T. and the said revision came to be disposed by an order of remand considering the following questions:- (1) Whether the suit lands are leased out for cultivation of sugarcane crops? (2) Whether the three gift deeds involved in this case are valid? 5. The learned Awal Karkun, after hearing both parties, allowed the Petitioner’s application holding that the alleged gift deeds are against the law and held invalid vide its order dated 31.5.1976. The Respondents, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred Revision before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karvir Division, Kolhapur. The S.D.O. vide its order dated 13.12.1985 held that the gift deeds are valid and the Petitioner was not entitled to possession of the lands except survey No. 165/2. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the original Petitioner filed Revision Application No. MRT/KP/129 of 1986 before the M.R.T. The Respondents also filed Revision Application No. MRT/KP/101 of 1986. 7. The Member of the M.R.T. was pleased to dismiss both the Revision Applications by a common order dated 29.6.1990. The aforesaid order is a subject-matter of challenge in this petition at the instance of the Petitioner. 8. Having heard both parties, both Advocates agree that the core issue involved in the petition is about the legality of the three gift deeds involved in the present dispute. Both parties have agree that both gift deeds are valid and in accordance with law and on the basis of gift deeds the respondents have become owners of the suit lands. In view of this no fault can be found with the impugned order. Other issues become otiose. The view taken in the impugned order is a reasonable and possible view. No interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, (V.C.DAGA, (V.C.DAGA, J.) J.) J.)