wp689­10.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.689 OF 2010 Dev Siddhaguru Vahivatdar through Babunath Narayan Gosavi .. Petitioner versus Mr.Laxman Govind Korgaonkar .. Respondent Mr.M.S.Karnik for the petitioner. Mr.P.J.Thorat for respondent. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 8th JUNE 2011. P.C.: . Heard both sides. Perused the orders under challenge. 2 The only contention raised before me by Mr.Karnik is that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the true purport of the order of remand. The order of remand was necessitated because the Tahsildar had failed to decide as to whether the Devsthan is landlord or not. According to Mr.Karnik, the pre- requisite for applicability of section 32-G is the landlord-tenant relationship. If that is relationship is not established, then, the proceeding under section 32-G of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act is not maintainable. Without adverting to wp689­10.doc 2 this aspect, even after remand, the Authorities mechanically held that the petitioner is the landlord. The position infact is otherwise. 3 Mr.Thorat appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the petitioner is raising contradictory pleas only to defeat the legitimate claim of the tenant-respondent before me. All throughout it was proved that the respondent was paying rent to the petitioner and, therefore, landlord-tenant relationship was clearly established and proved. In such circumstances, there is no question of re-opening of the issues which are concluded. The remand did not contemplate the same as well. For all these reasons, he submits that the petition be dismissed. 4 Perusal of the order passed by the Authorities in the earlier round of litigation would show that the Tribunal may have made some observations on the foundation and basis of the proceedings in question. The Tribunal makes the observations with regard to the impleadment of the parties. If the petitioner Devsthan Committee is claiming no right in the land, then, the observations are that the Authorities should implead the wp689­10.doc 3 Government or such other representative if the land belongs to the Government. The observations of the Tribunal, during the course of remand, did not mandate that the inquiry must revolve around the issues. If there is any real dispute, then, all these observations were germane and relevant. Once it is concurrently found that the petitioners have been receiving rent and the documents in that behalf have been produced and perused so also carefully scrutinised, then, there is no perversity or error apparent which is disclosed warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has in para 6 of the impugned order dated 2nd September 2009 adverted to this aspect and has held that the claim of the petitioner before me that there was an exemption certificate under section 88(b) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act to exclude the land from the operation of the Act itself is not enough and rejected that stand then taken before him. For all these reasons, this is not a case for interference and petition is dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)