*1* wp.4355.10.933.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4355 OF 2010 Vitthal Vishram Sawant. ..Petitioner -Versus- Achut Gulabrao Pinge. ..Respondent .......... Mr.G.R.Rege with Mrs.Leena Sawant, for the Petitioner. Mr.Arvind G. Kundekar, for the Respondent. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 09th August, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard both sides. This Writ Petition challenges the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 08.01.2010 and that of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 06.09.2003. 2 The argument of Mr.Rege, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, is that all throughout, the proceedings have been initiated against the dead person. If the proceedings are against the dead person, then, they are nullity in the eyes of law. According to Mr.Rege, it is common ground that the recorded tenant (Vishram) died on 28.08.1958. The proceedings have been initiated in 1963. This means that he was not alive when the proceedings were initiated, yet, the sale was declared ineffective. There is nothing on record to indicate that the heir was brought on record or the notices were served. The record produced does not indicate the compliance with the provisions enabling the Tribunal to declare the sale as ineffective. For all these reasons, the proceedings under Section 32P of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 could *2* wp.4355.10.933.sxw not have been concluded in favour of the Respondent-Landlord. Those proceedings were also invalid and illegal. Once the sale could not have been declared ineffective in the earlier round of litigation which was nullity, then, consequential relief under section 32P could not have been granted. The Tribunal, therefore, failed to notice this aspect of the matter and its order suffers from patent error and illegality. 3 On the other hand, it is contended that this is not a proceeding against the dead person. The record would indicate that the Petitioner’s predecessor was a tenant. In the year 1963, a suo motu inquiry was initiated to sell the land under section 32G of the Act. The death extract may have been produced, but it is clear that the service was effected on one of the son (Kashiram) who appeared and gave his statement. It is based upon his statement and other record, so also, finding that everything is sought to be reopened after 27 years, that the Tahasildar-ALT, Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal have rightly refused to interfere. There is no error or perversity calling for any interference in the writ jurisdiction. 4 After hearing both sides and perusing with their assistance the impugned order, so also, the affidavit in reply and annexures thereto, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal committed no error in dismissing the revision application. The deceased (Vishram Sawant) was the recorded tenant. Though the notice under section 32G(1) was issued in the name of the deceased, so also, to the landlord, but there is report of the Gram Sevak about service that the notice was served on Kashiram one of the son of deceased. Inspite of service on the son, on the date of hearing, he had not appeared and the Tahasildar declared the sale as ineffective. After the sale was declared ineffective, the proceedings under section 32P were initiated. Once again those proceedings were served on Kashiram. The *3* wp.4355.10.933.sxw notice was also served on another son Rajaram. Rajaram appeared before the Tahasildar and gave statement that his father is dead and his brother Kashiram resides at Mumbai. He clearly stated that he had knowledge of the proceedings under section 32G where under the sale was declared ineffective. He clearly stated that they reside jointly and his brother is in service at Mumbai, but his wife resides in the village. He knew the consequences of the sale being declared ineffective, that the possession will be taken back from the heirs of the original tenant and handed over to the landlord. The Tribunal was of the opinion and in my view, rightly that these two brothers who appeared pursuant to the notice have willingly stated that they did not take any action for purchasing the property and for getting the order set aside where under the purchase was declared as ineffective. Once the purchase was declared ineffective, then, the instant proceedings under section 32P could have been initiated. The order is, therefore, not passed against the dead person, but his legal representatives appeared and their statements were recorded. Even the notices which were stated to be in the name of the dead person, were served on the sons of the deceased-tenant. The findings of fact recorded in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Tribunal’s order are based on the record and are in consonance therewith. They cannot be said to be vitiated by any error apparent or perversity so as to call for interference in writ jurisdiction. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no substance in the contentions raised by Mr.Rege and the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)