IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.982 OF 1988 The Boomisena,Manor,Taluka Palghar, District Thane .. .. Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors.. Respondents Shri C.G.Gavnekar,Amicus Curiae for the Petitionr Shri P.M.Patil,AGP for Respondent/State Shri V.A.Gangal for Respondent no.7 CORAM : SHRI J.N.PATEL & SHRI K.K.TATED, JJ. DATE : 30th July 2008. P.C.: 1. A letter written by an organisation by name Bhoomisena which was addressed to the Hon’ble Shri Justice C.S.Dharmadhikari, the then Judge of this Court was treated as Suo Moto writ petition No.982 of 1988. The sum and substance of the letter is that the powerful land owners have deprived the tribal tenant of her rights and therefore they seek justice in the matter. It has been stated that one Mathibai Pandya Bhutkade was protected tenant vide Mutation Entry No.570 dated 20-12-1949 and there were proceedings initiated before the tenancy authorities and that the land owners manipulated the proceedings and deprived the said Mathibai and her legal heirs of their rights. : 2 : 2. On the last date this Court called for report from the Collector, Thane in the matter. Accordingly, the Additional Collector, Thane has forwarded the report along with letter addressed to the Government Pleader, Writ Cell, High Court,Mumbai which also consist the report of the status of the land in question and the litigation. 3. On going through the report we find that the subject matter has been dealt with in accordance with law and Smt.Mathibai Bhutkade who died in February 1977 so also her son Rama Bhutkade who died on 27-3-2000 and his wife Smt.Savitribai Rama Bhutkade who also died on 15-11-2007, did not agitate the matter further after the matter came to be settled before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay. 4. Therefore, in our view nothing survives in this petition. We are of the view that the allegations made by Bhoomisena with regard to the case of Mathibai Bhutkede that she was divested of her right and possession of land when she was protected tenant without following due process of law, cannot be accepted considering the history of the litigation between the parties and therefore allegations made by the Petitioner that tribal’s lands are divested by powerful : 3 : land owners/landlords by setting up Mathibai’s case as illustration does not call for any intervention by this Court. 5. The petition therefore stands dismissed. (J.N. Patel, J.) (K.K. Tated, J)