1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4606 of 2010 Shri Balkrishna Bhiku Komnak ... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. Rakesh Bhatkar for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 25th June 2010 P.C. 1. By this petition, petitioner challenges the judgment and order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner. 2. Petitioner claims to be a tenant of the suit property on 1 April 1957. In a Regular Civil Suit no.17 of 1995 reference was made by Civil Court to the Mamletdar (Tahsildar) for a decision on an issue: “whether the petitioner was a tenant of the suit property as on 1 April 1957”. The Tahsildar held in favour of the petitioner but on appeal, the sub­ divisional officer reversed the decision and held that petitioner was not the tenant of the suit land on 1 April 1957. That decision has been confirmed by the Tribunal. 2 3. As the first court of appeal, the sub­divisional officer was entitled to re­appreciate the evidence and on re­appreciation of the evidence produced on record, the sub­divisional officer has come to the conclusion that petitioner was not the tenant. This is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence and has been confirmed by the Tribunal. This finding of fact, in the absence of any perversity is not open for challenge in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 3. Even otherwise, I am satisfied that the finding recorded by the lower appellate court and upheld by the Tribunal is a possible finding of fact. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon an entry in the 7/12 extract which showed the name of the petitioner in occupation of the suit land for the years 1954­55 and 1955­56. Thereafter, the name of the petitioner was not shown but names of some of the other respondents were shown to be the persons in cultivation. Even if it is assumed that the entries in the revenue records are correct, they do not show that petitioner was a tenant on 1 April 1957 as alleged by him. Further more, the entries for the year 1954­55 and 1955­56 also show “Reet 4” in the cultivation column. Under the Revenue Manual “Reet­3” is shown where the land is cultivated by a tenant and “Reet­4” is shown where the land is cultivated through a hired labour. Thus, even these entries of the year 1954­55 and 1955­56 do not support the contention of the petitioner to be the tenant on 1st April 1957. There is no merit in the writ petition which is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)