Ladda 1wp­9460­10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9460 OF 2010. Shri Sakharam Mahipat Chalke ....Petitioner. Versus Dashrath Rajaram Chalke & ors ...Respondents. Shri S.M. Kamble, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr C.M. Lokesh, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2, 3 (a) to 3 (e) Mr Shashank Mangle, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 5th September, 2011. P.C.: 1. By the impugned order, the learned President of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai (M.R.T.) has rejected the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay of 251 days occurred in filing revision against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Chiplun, (S.D.O.). Ladda 2wp­9460­10 2. The revision arose out of the proceeding under Section 70 (b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The respondent’s application under Section 70 (b) was allowed. He was declared tenant by Tahsildar. This order was confirmed by the S.D.O. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the M.R.T. and since there was delay, the application for condonation of delay was filed which came to be rejected by the impugned order in the petition. 3. The appeal before the S.D.O. was heard on 4.7.2008. Admittedly, the petitioner along with his lawyer was present when the matter was heard by the S.D.O. The order was dictated on the same day. The petitioner, however, contends that he got knowledge of the order of the S.D.O. on 28.1.2009 and thereafter revision was filed on 20.3.2009. The excuse of the petitioner is after thought. The respondent after obtaining an order under Section 70 (b) had preferred an application under section 32G for fixation of purchase price before the Tahsildar. Notice of this proceeding was issued and received by the petitioner in the month of August, 2008. The proceeding under Section 32G was finalized in the month of October, 2008. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that he was not aware about the decision of the S.D.O. in the proceeding u/s 70 (b). In pursuance to the proceeding u/s 32G a certificate of Ladda 3wp­9460­10 purchase is also granted in favour of the respondent. Learned Member of MRT has considered all the facts on merit and has given cogent reasons for not condoning delay. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned order, I do not see any reason, much less sufficient reasons to condone the said delay. No case is made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)