- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 10466 OF 2009 Keshav Khandu Patil .. Petitioner Vs. Madhukar Balvant Dandekar & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. A. J. Joshi, for the Petitioner. CORAM : R. C. CHAVAN, J. DATED : APRIL 28, 2010. P.C. : 1. This petition by a tenant is directed against the judgment of the learned President of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal whereby he dismissed the petitioner’s revision, questioning the judgment and orders passed by the Tahsildar and the Agricultural Lands Tribunal Palghar, which was confirmed in appeal by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer. 2. The Tahsildar, by his order dated 30th June 2000, had said that since 7-12 extract of Survey Nos. 14 and 15 had not been produced by the petitioner, no orders were passed in respect of those survey numbers. The dismissal of petitioner’s revision by the Revenue Tribunal - 2 - maintaining the orders of Tahsildar, would obviously imply that the order of the Tahsildar in respect of Survey No. 14 and 15 stand as they are. Therefore, since there are no orders in respect of Survey Nos. 14 and 15, the petitioner can still avail the remedy as may be available in law in respect of Survey No. 14 and 15. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer in appeal, by his judgment dated 16th July 2001 had observed that the petitioner would be at liberty to file separate proceedings before the Tahsildar, to declare himself as a tenant in respect of Survey No. 17/1. Now, since this order too has been maintained by the Revenue Tribunal, whatever may be observations or the causation by the Revenue Tribunal, the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer would stand as it is, and the petitioner would have the liberty to independently approach the Tahsildar for declaring himself as a tenant in respect of Survey No. 17/1. The observations of the Tribunal or causation by the Tribunal while maintaining this order would obviously not come in the way of the petitioner in seeking appropriate relief by filing an appropriate proceeding. 4. As far as rest of the observations of the Tribunal maintaining the orders, both the Courts below are concerned, they cannot, at all, be faulted. At the cost of repetition, it is pointed out that - 3 - dismissal of the Revision by the Tribunal does not foreclose the petitioner’s remedy in respect of Survey Nos. 14 and 15 which had been left open by the Tahsildar and also the remedy in respect of Survey No. 17/1 which had been referred to by the Sub-Divisional Officer. . Writ petition is thus misconceived and is therefore, dismissed with the above observations. Sd/- [R. C. CHAVAN, J.]