[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 17 OF 20004 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4792 OF 2001 SHRI MADHU NANA AGALAME & ORS. ... APPELLANTS. [ORIG. PETITIONERS] VS. SHRI TULSHIDAS NATHU MOHITE ... RESPONDENTS. AND ANR. [ORIG. RESPONDENTS.] SHRI V.G.MUJUMDAR FOR APPELLANTS. MS. SHARVARI SHALILENDRA I/B. P.S.DANI FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. MR. PATNE AGP FOR THE STATE. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : SMT. RANJANA DESAI SMT. RANJANA DESAI SMT. RANJANA DESAI AND AND AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. A.A.SAYED, JJ. A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : April 10, 2008. : April 10, 2008. : April 10, 2008. P.C. 1. The appellants have challenged order dated 29th July, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ Petition No. 4792 of 2001. In short the grievance of the appellants is that their elder brother Babu, without informing them surrendered the agricultural lands belonging to them to the Tenancy Authorities. On surrender of lands Agricultural Lands Tribunal (for short "ALT") passed order dated 19.2.1960 to the following effect :- "The tenant has stated that he is not willing to purchase the land in question. The purchase is therefore ineffective. The land is kept at the disposal of the Collector under Section 32-P of the B.T. & A.L. Act." [2] 2. It is contended by the appellants who are the brothers of said Babu that the appellants noticed Mutation Entry No. 1431, dated 18.10.1968, which indicated that Babu had surrendered the said land only on 12.8.1994. The appellants, therefore, challenged the said mutation entry before the Sub Divisional Officer, Maval, Sub-division Maval, Pune, who allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the ALT , Maval, vide order dated 1.4.1997. That order was challenged by the first respondent before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune ("Tribunal" for short) in revision. The Tribunal by its Order dated 18.3.1999 allowed the revision application and set aside the order passed by the S.D.O. Maval. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the instant writ petition came to be filed. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge of this Court observing that the Tribunal had rightly observed that there is no averment found in the memorandum of appeal that when the statement of Babu was recorded in the year 1990, the appellants were not given notice by the A.L.T. and, therefore, the appeal can not be entertained. The learned Single Judge further observed that no statement is made even in the petition that no notice was given by the A.L.T to the persons who were interested in the land before recording statement that the tenant is not willing to purchase the land and, therefore, the purchase has become ineffective. On this aspect we concur with the learned Single Judge. [3] We notice that the Tribunal has observed that the office copies of the lower Court’s file clearly show that the other brothers of Babu were duly served with the notice by the A.L.T. Maval. But both the brothers have not objected to the statement made by Babu. 3. In our opinion a belated attempt on the part of the appellants to get over the mutation entry cannot be entertained. The learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition. 4. The learned Single Judge has saddled the appellants with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. Considering the fact that the lands of the appellants have been surrendered, we feel that the order saddling the appellants with costs of Rs. 10000/- is harsh. Hence, only that part of the order imposing the costs on the appellants is set aside. Rest of the impugned order cannot be interfered with. 5. The L.P.A. stands disposed of in the above terms. ..... [SMT.RANJANA [SMT.RANJANA [SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.] DESAI, J.] DESAI, J.] [A.A.SAYED, [A.A.SAYED, [A.A.SAYED, J.] J.] J.]