1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 7542 OF 2009 Jayprakash Surba Talekar & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Rajesh Bindra i/b. Ms. Prachi Pawar, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. M.S. Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 Ms. P. S. Cardozo, A.G.P for the Respondent No.1 CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 24TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The Petitioner who claims to be the tenant of the agricultural land in dispute under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act) has sought to challenge the order dated 26th February 2009 passed by the Respondent No.1 pursuant to which the Respondent No.2 came to be put in possession as owner of the disputed land upon purchase by him from the original owners of the land. He has relied upon certain mutation entry 2 in other Government records. The entries have been challenged. The Petitioner has relied upon certain letters issued by the Authorities that the entries relied upon by the Petitioner were never made. The Respondent No.2 is stated to have admitted the fact that the Petitioner has become owner of the disputed lands. 3. The Petitioner has relied upon various 7x12 extracts from the year 1962 until 1977 showing his cultivation on the disputed land. Certain further records and entries were required by the Court. The Petitioner was directed to produce the certified copies of further Revenue Records. 4. The learned A.G.P was also directed to produce the Government records in respect of the disputed land. The records have been produced by the learned A.G.P. The Petitioner’s documents have been seen and verified by the learned A.G.P. The learned A.G.P states to Court that the Petitioner’s documents annexed to the Petition as well as the further documents produced by the Petitioner as called upon by the Court in the further affidavit filed by the Petitioner are correct documents upon verification of the original records. 5. It would have to be seen whether or not the Respondent No.2 is a bonafide purchaser or whether he has come to be put in possession of the disputed land by either fabricating Government records or by other illegal means. 6. Mr. Karnik rightly states that this would require a fact finding inquiry. In fact Respondent No.1 would be required to go through the documents of 3 the Respondent No.2 as well as that of the Petitioner and consider all of them on merits. He would also require to see whether the documents relied upon by the Respondent No.2 more specially the mutation entries upon which he claims his right in the property have been fabricated or illegally produced. If that is so, the Respondent No.1 would also have to inform the relevant authority to take action against the errant Officers. 7. Under these circumstances the impugned order dated 26th February 2009 is by consent set aside. The proceedings are remanded to the lower Court. 8. The Respondent No.1 shall hear the Petitioner as well as the Respondent NO.2 and consider the documents produced by both of them on merits and pass a reasoned order on merits with regard to their respective claims. 9. The Respondent No.2 is now put in possession of the property. It has to be seen whether that possession has been legitimately or illegitimately obtained. The Petitioners are the Senior Citizens. The Respondent NO.1 shall dispose off the remanded case within 2 months from today. 10.Mr. Karnik on behalf of the Respondent No.2 states that the Respondent shall maintain status­quo until the final order of Respondent No.1 is passed. 11.The Petitioner’s Advocate has shown service effected upon Respondent No. 3 by RPAD. The Respondent No.3 has failed to appear. The Respondent No.3 shall not dispose off, part with possession, encumber, alienate, sell, or 4 otherwise create any third party rights in the disputed property. 12.The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and Rule is granted accordingly. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)