1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4234 OF 1993 Shri Narayan Sahebrao Bhosale, Occ:Agriculturist, residing at Village Kinhai, Taluka Koregaon, Dist-Satara. .. Petitioner Vs 1. Shri Sarjeraobhau Pisal, Adult, Occ.-Nil,residing at village Kinhai, Tal Koregaon, Dist:Satara; 2.Dr Sudhir Sarjerao Pisal, Adult, Occ: Doctor, residing at Ashwini Clinic, 524, SVP Road, Opp Vihar Cofee House, Opera House, Bombay-04. 3.Sou.Rohini Rajkumar Jadhav, Adult , Occ: Household, residing at Yeshwant Colony, Ghodnadi (Shirur), Tal: Shirur, Dist-Pune. .. Respondents Mr. Abhaysingh A Shinde i/b Mr Dilip Bodake, Advocate for the petitioner Respondent no.1 served. Mr. S.G.Karandikar, Advocate for Respondent no.3. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 07/11/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is directed against the concurrent T 2 judgments and orders of the authorities below in the proceedings arising from an application filed by the petitioner under section 32-O and 32-P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, “the Act”). The petitioner claims to be a landlord, whereas the respondents are tenants in the suit property, namely, Gat No.253 and 99/A, admeasuring 6H-28R and 1H-15R respectively, situate at Village Kinhai, Taluka Koregaon, Dist-Satara (for short, “the suit land”). 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to this petition are as follows: The suit land was originally held by one Bhagirathibai Sahebrao Bhosale. She is a sister of the petitioner’s father. She had taken the petitioner in adoption on 19.6.1942. One Tai, the daughter of Bhagirathibai, married respondent no.1-Sarjerao Pisal. The petitioner claims to be a landlord of the suit land, being an adopted son of Bhagirathibai. He had filed a civil suit seeking such declaration. The suit was finally concluded, in this court, in his favour and he was declared landlord of the suit land. A symbolic possession, in pursuance of the decree in the said suit, was also given to the petitioner on 15.7.1976. Admittedly, respondent no.1 was in possession of the suit land at that time as a tenant of the suit 3 land. Respondent nos 2 and 3 are the son and the daughter of respondent no.1. 3. It appears that respondent no.1 had filed an application under section 70(b) of the Act before Tenancy Awal Karkun, Koregaon, Dist-Satara against Bhagirathibai. In that application, a statement of Bhagirathibai was recorded wherein she had stated that Sarjerao was cultivating the suit land as a tenant and he used to pay rent to her. A statement of Sarjerao was also recorded in those proceedings wherein he had stated that for last seven years he had been cultivating the suit land as a tenant and had paid rent to the landlord. He had also stated that before he started cultivating the suit land his father was cultivating it as a tenant till he died some time in 1962-1963. The Tenancy Awal Karkun, Koregaon, disposed of the application filed by respondent no.1 under section 70(b) of the Act declaring him to be a tenant of the suit land and his name was directed to be entered into the record of rights as the tenant. The order of the Tenancy Awal Karkun, Koregaon, dated 11.1.1971 was never challenged by the petitioner. 4. In 1977, for the first time, the petitioner filed an application under section 32-O and 32-P of the Act before the 4 Addl. Tahasildar and ALT, Koregaon, Dist-Satara, bearing Application No.32-G, Kinhai 12/77. The said application was instituted by the petitioner contending that respondent no.1 was inducted as a tenant for the first time in 1964-1965 and since he failed to exercise his right to purchase the suit land under section 32-O of the Act, he is entitled for possession thereof under section 32-P. The Addl.Tahasildar rejected the application filed by the petitioner under section 32-O and 32-P of the Act holding that respondent no.1 and before him his father were in possession of the suit land since prior to 1.4.1957 as tenants and that they became deemed purchasers thereof under section 32G of the Act. Accordingly, he fixed purchase price under section 32-G of the Act vide his order dated 12.8.1981. This order of the Tahasildar was challenged in appeal and thereafter in revision by the petitioner. All the three authorities have concurrently held that the respondent was in possession of the suit land as a tenant on 1.4.1957 and have rejected the contention of the petitioner that his tenancy was created after the tiller's day. Admittedly, the respondents paid the purchase price and 32M certificate has also been issued in their favour. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record along with the orders passed by all the three authorities below. I have also perused the order dated 5 11.1.1971, by which respondent no.1 was declared as tenant of the suit land. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that respondent no.1's tenancy was created after 1.4.1957 and since he failed to apply under section 32-O of the Act within the time stipulated, the suit land deserves to be restored to the petitioner as provided for under section 32-P of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not urge any other contentions. From perusal of the orders passed by the authorities below, so also the order dated 11.1.1971 passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkun, Koregaon, it is an admitted position that respondent no.1 was in possession as a tenant of the suit land. The question raised was whether the tenancy was created before or after the tiller's day, i.e. 1.4.1957. As against the concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the courts below, apart from the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as recorded in the impugned orders, there is absolutely nothing on record to indicate that the tenancy was created after the tiller's day. It is true that the petitioner in his statement recorded in 1971, had stated that he was in possession for last about seven years as a tenant. But he had stated that before he got into possession as a tenant, his father was in possession of the suit land as a tenant. The statement of respondent no.1 was recorded in the proceedings under section 6 70(b) of the Act. The order of the ALT dated 11.1.1971, passed in those proceedings, was never challenged by the petitioner. The order dated 11.1.1971 passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkun further shows that Bhagirathibai had also made a statement in those proceedings that respondent no.1 was cultivating the suit land as tenant and he used to pay her rent. Since the order dated 11.1.1971 was not challenged by the petitioner, it attained finality. Apart from the submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not and did not point out any material on record to show that respondent no.1 or his father was not in possession as a tenant on or before the tiller's day so as to say that the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below are perverse. In my opinion, all the three authorities have considered the material on record in proper perspective. Considering that there are concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below and that there is sufficient material on record to sustain those findings and considering extremely limited jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to disturb the findings of fact, I find no merit in the writ petition and it is disposed of as such. Rule discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)