1 WP1758OF10.sxw vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1758 OF 2010 Vithoba Arjun Pawar @ Wadekar .. Petitioner -versus Shrikant Anant Joshi and ors .. Respondents. Mr. A.M. Pungaliya for the Petitioner. Mr. S.G. Karandikar, for the respondent. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. DATED: 20th July, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Pungaliya and Mr.Karandikar, learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent, respectively. 2. The petitioner filed Civil suit for injunction simpliciter in Civil Court. Simultaneously the petitioner also filed proceeding under section 70-B of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short called as “the BT & AL Act”) before the Tahsildar. In Civil suit, the issue as to the petitioner’s tenancy, was framed and the same was referred to the tenancy authority u/s 85A of the BT & AL Act. This issue was decided by the Tahsildar, by the common order and it was held that the petitioner could not prove his tenancy to the land in dispute. This order of Tahsildar is confirmed 2 WP1758OF10.sxw by both ie Sub Divisional Officer and M. R. T., in an appeal and the revision respectively. 3. In order to prove tenancy, the petitioner could not point out any evidence. He, however, relied upon 1955 entry of Sakharam, who was his uncle, to the suit property in dispute namely survey No.148. It is true that Sakaharam’s name was shown in record of rights to survey No.148. However, it is not disputed that the survey no.148 was sub divided in 8 parts in the year l955 and out of 8 parts, five parts were purchased by Sakaharam and his family members under the provisions of 32(G) of the BT & AL Act. In the above circumstances I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (R. V. MORE, J.)