WP 145/10 1 SSK/7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 145 OF 2010 Shri Kabir Parshuram Patil ....Petitioner Versus Sub-Divisional Officer, Thane Division, Thane, & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. M. S. Karnik, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.N.Bhosale, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr. S. U. Kamdar, Senior Counsel i/b. M/s. Navdeep Vora & Associates, Advocates for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED :28th JULY, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr. Karnik, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Kamdar, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2. The petition arises out of proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 filed by Respondent No. 2 for fixation of purchase prise of the land in dispute. The Tahsildar dismissed the Respondent No.2’s application on the ground that the land is not under cultivation since two years as drain water is spread in the land. An appeal was preferred by Respondent No.2 before the Sub-Divisional WP 145/10 2 Officer. The present Petitioner was also a Party-Respondent in the said appeal. The Appellate Court was of the opinion that the fixation of the purchase price cannot be refused on the ground that there is no cultivation. The Appellate Court considered rival claims of Respondent No.2 as well as the Petitioner and found that the name of Respondent No.2’s father- Budhya was recorded as protected tenant to the property in dispute in the year 1953. The Appellate Court also negatived the contention of the Petitioner that the name of Budhya-Respondent No.2’s father was recorded to the property in dispute as Karta of the joint family. The Appellate Court was of the opinion that the Petitioner in the absence of any evidence ought to have filed proceedings under section 70 (B) for declaration of his status as a tenant. The Appellate Court consequentially allowed the Respondent Nos.2’s appeal and fixed purchase price under section 32-G of the B.T.and A.L. Act, 1948. The Lower Appellate Court’s order was challenged by the Petitioner before the Maharshtra Revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal considered the evidence on record and especially the contention of the Petitioner that Mahadu – Father of Budhya, Alashya and Palashya was a tenant in the suit property. The member of the Revenue Tribunal came to the conclusion that Budhya-Father of Respondent No.2 and not Mahadu – Father of Budhya was a tenant in the property in dispute. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal also considered various mutation entries to come to the above conclusion. I find no merit in the WP 145/10 3 contention of Mr.Karnik, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in this regard that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal for the first time considered the evidence on record. Mr. Karnik, learned Counsel for the Petitioner could not point out any material to substantiate his contention that the Petitioner’s grand-father viz. Mahadu was tenant in the property in dispute. On the contrary, the concurrent findings are recorded by the Lower Appellate Court and Member of Tribunal that Budhya-Father of Respondent No.2 was a protected tenant by virtue of mutation entry recorded in the year 1953. I do not find any error in the impugned order, so as to enable to interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (R. V. MORE, J.)