-: 1 :- wp- 3426/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3426 OF 2010 Vasudeo N. Golatkar. ..Petitioner. Versus Shivram Sawant Khem & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. G. J. Sabnis for the petitioner. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : August 11, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition arises out of the proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [for short “the said Act”]. The dispute is about land Survey No.237/1. Respondent no.1 admittedly was the landlord and respondent no.2 claims to be tenant. In the year 1964, purchase certificate was granted in favour of respondent no.2 as respondent no.1 admitted that respondent no.2 is tenant in the suit property. The petitioner claims to be tenant of the suit land alongwith respondent no.2. After the lapse of 32 years, for the first time in the year 1996, the petitioner challenged the order passed in favour of respondent no.2 in the year 1964. 2. The SDO remanded the matter back to Tehsildar and Tehsildar srp -: 2 :- wp- 3426/10 after hearing both sides again held that respondent no.2 was tenant in the suit property and petitioner could not produce any evidence in support of his claim that he was tenant in the suit land alongwith respondent no.2. This order of Tehsildar is confirmed by SDO and MRT in an appeal and revision respectively and therefore the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Mr. Sabnis, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon map of the said land at Exhibit-12 and extract of Form No.4. Relying upon the map he submitted that house of the petitioner is situated in the suit land. He further submitted that Hissa Form No.4 discloses the name of petitioner in the suit property. Both these documents are considered by the authorities below. The authorities below have found that the stray entry of the name of petitioner in Hissa Form No.4 is not a conclusive proof of petitioner’s possession on the tiller’s day over the suit land. It was also held that though the petitioner’s house is located in the suit land, that cannot also be evidence of petitioner’s tenancy in the suit land. I find no error in the said findings. In Form No.-4, name of respondent no.2 is shown as tenant and below his name, name of the petitioner is recorded. It appears that this Form No.4 is prepared subsequent to tiller’s day. The stray entry of the petitioner’s name in Hissa Form No.4 will not prove the petitioner’s possession to the suit land on tiller’s day, -: 3 :- wp- 3426/10 especially in the absence of any other document to that effect. So far as the petitioner's house is concerned, I agree with the finding of the lower authorities that location of petitioner’s house will not prove petitioner's tenancy in the suit land. Purchase price in favour of respondent no.2 was fixed in the year 1964. The petitioner slept over his right for 32 years and for the first time in the year 1996 challenged the order passed in 1964. Had the petitioner been tenant of the suit land, he would not have kept quiet for such a long period. Taking overall view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the petition. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)