1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5925 OF 2010 (JANKABAI @ JANABAI SITARAM DEBAJE...VS.. BALASAHEB TRUST) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. R.D. Raskar, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 13, 2011. Heard Mrs. Raskar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal holding that the petitioner was liable to handover the possession of the suit property to the respondent trust. 3. The respondent trust was the owner of the property in question. The land of the respondent trust was in possession of one Sitaram the deceased husband of petitioner. After the death of Sitaram the respondent trust filed proceedings under Section 120 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 for possession of the land on the ground that the respondent was a registered trust and had acquired certificate of exemption under Section 129 of the Act of 1958. The petitioner filed reply to the application filed by the respondent before the Sub Divisional Officer and pleaded that Sitaram was the tenant in the suit property since the year 1958-59 and the tenancy of Sitaram was heritable and the petitioner became 2 tenants of the property after the death of Sitaram. It was further stated by the petitioner in the reply that the respondent trust had created tenancy of the property in favour of the petitioner’s father after the death of Sitaram. The petitioner sought for the dismissal of the proceedings under Section 120 of the Act. 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, on a appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the respondent trust was entitled to seek possession of the property as the tenancy was not heritable in this case as the respondent was a public trust and had also produced an exemption certificate under Section 129(b) of the Act of 1958. By the order dated 21.11.2006 the Tahsildar held that the petitioner had not produced anything on record to show that the certificate issued in favour of the trust under Section 129(b) of the Act of 1958 was cancelled at any point of time. It was held that though the petitioner has stated that the trust had again leased the property to the petitioner no oral or documentary evidence in this regard was furnished by the petitioner. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was challenged by the petitioner before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 18th June, 2010 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners and confirmed the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was of the view that the tenancy of Sitaram was not heritable as the land belonged to the public trust which had obtained an exemption certificate under Section 129(b) of the Act of 1958. The Tribunal held that the petitioner was unauthorizedly and wrongfully possessing the land of the public trust. 3 5. The findings recorded by both the Authorities are just and proper and call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..