( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2009 OF 1991 Shri Ramgir Ratangir Gosavi Since deceased, by L.Rs. (A) Smt. Samindrabai w/o Ramgir Gosavi, R/o Borodi, Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad. (B) Shri Uttamgir Ramgir Gosavi, R/o as above. (C) Shri Durgagir s/o Ramgir Gosavi, R/o as above. (D) Aniti d/o Ramgir Gosavi, Age : 15 years, Minor, u/g of Real Mother Samindrabai Ramgir, R/o as above. (E) Sow. Parwatibai w/o Vishnu Gosavi, R/o Murshadabad, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Dashrath s/o Bhawani (Petition abated as against this respondent as per order dated 20-01-2010). 2. Chandrabhagabai Vishwanath R/o Borodi, Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad. 3. Pandharinath Vishnuth, R/o Borodi, Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad. 4. Namdeo Maroti (Petition abated as against this respondent vide Addl. Registrar’s order dt. 3.8.92) RESPONDENTS ( 2 ) ..... Mrs. V.B. Deshmukh, advocate holding for Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.N. Nawandar, advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 2nd February, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Challenge in this petition is to the findings rendered by the Tenancy Tribunals at various levels, including Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal whereby issue regarding tenancy of deceased petitioner Ramgir was answered in negative on Reference made by the Civil Court in Suit (R.C.S. No. 74/1977) filed by him. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that the agricultural land bearing Gat No. 75 was held by respondent – Dashrath and his brother i.e. deceased Vishwanath who was the predecessor of the respondents No. 2 and 3. There is also no dispute about the fact that deceased petitioner – Ramgir filed suit (R.C.S. No. 74/1977) for relief of perpetual injunction against the respondents. He asserted that he was cultivating the ( 3 ) said land on batai basis from the year 1965 onwards. His tenancy rights were disputed by the respondents. It was denied that he was inducted in possession of the suit land as a bataidar (tenant). It was also denied that he was in actual possession of the suit land. The civil Court framed issue viz. “whether the plaintiff proves that he is bataidar of suit land ?” 3. The issue was referred to the Tenancy Tribunal for injunction as contemplated under section 99A of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The parties adduced necessary evidence before the Tenancy Tribunal. The learned Additinoal Tahsildar held that deceased petitioner Ramgir failed to prove his status as a tenant of the suit land. Therefore, the issue was answered in negative. Feeling aggrieved, deceased petitioner Ramgir preferred an appeal before the learned Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) which was dismissed. He thereafter filed revision application (Case No. 2/B/90- A) which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgement dated 21-11-1990, rendered by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Hence, the petition. ( 4 ) 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. There are concurrent findings of the three Tenancy Tribunals in respect of the issue of tenancy as raised by deceased petitioner – Ramgir. All the three Tribunals concurrently held that the issue of tenancy was not proved at all. The interference in such findings of facts is permissible only when it is demonstrated that all the three Tribunals committed patent illegalities amounting to perversity in reaching such a conclusion or the finding is not supported by any record. It is important to notice that the deceased petitioner relied upon pencil entries about his possession for the period before 1976. It appears that immediately after his name was recorded in ink during 1976-1977, he had filed the suit for injunction. It is well settled that pencil entry in the column of cultivation does not carry any presumptive value. 6. The issue of tenancy was referred by the Civil Court in suit (R.C.S. No. 74/1977) instituted by the ( 5 ) deceased petitioner – Ramgir for injunction. His case was that the suit land was given to him by the landlords for cultivation on batai basis in 1965. The deceased respondent No. 1 – Dashrath and other two respondents had denied status of the deceased petitioner – Ramgir as a tenant. It appears that the said suit has been now dismissed by the trial Court on 30-11-1991 because the deceased petitioner – Ramgir failed to prosecute the suit. The Reference to the Tenancy Tribunal was decided by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal against the deceased petitioner – Ramgir and, therefore, he was probably disinterested in continuing the suit. Mrs. Deshmukh, holding for Mr. V.D. Salunke, invited my attention to certain observations in “Baburao s/o Manaji v. Gangubai w/o Rambhau and others” 2000 (1) Bom.C.R. 121. It is held that when the issue of tenancy is referred, then the trial Court should stay the suit till the Reference has been received duly answered. What appears from the record is that the Reference was duly answered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The deceased petitioner did not, however, inform the trial Court about pendency ( 6 ) of the present writ petition. It also appears that no interim relief was granted in this petition and, hence, there was not intimation given to the Civil Court about pendency of the petition. Consequently, it is difficult to appreciate contention of Mrs. Deshmukh that the suit could not have been dismissed by the trial Court when the tenancy issue was referred to the Tribunal. 7. Coming to the merits, it is important to notice that deceased petitioner Ramgir did not produce any documentary evidence about his tenancy rights except and save placing reliance on certain entries in the 7/12 extracts. He did not file any agreement of batai (half share basis cultivation). He did not file any receipt regarding payment of half share of the crops to the land owner. Though he examined himself in support of the tenancy issue, yet, his version was not found trustworthy by the Tenancy Tribunal. He examined one more witness, namely, Vithal s/o Govinda alleging that said witness was his employee as agricultural labour. Said Vithal s/o Govinda admitted that he was serving for six years at Aurangabad. The Tribunal, therefore, ( 7 ) discarded his version because he was not in the continuous employment of deceased Ramgir. It was also noticed by the Courts below that name of the deceased petitioner – Ramgir was never shown in the list of tenants, which is maintained in Form No. V. The mere fact that in 1976-1977, the name of the deceased petitioner – Ramgir was recorded in ink in the 7/12 record will not be of much consequence. The certification of entries in the register of mutations is contemplated under Rule 17 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Record of Rights and Registers (Preparation and Maintenance) Rules, 1971. It was incumbent on Village Talathi to issue notices in Form No. XII to all persons likely to be interested in the disputes and thereafter, to decide the question regarding certification of the entries. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents were served with notices and due compliance of Rule-17 was made. Under the circumstances, the concurrent findings rendered by the three Tenancy Tribunals including Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal cannot be regarded as perverse and need not be interfered with. It is well settled that the findings of facts ( 8 ) cannot be disputed in the exercise of writ jurisdiction unless it is demonstrated that such findings are totally against the record or rendered without any material or are perverse. 8. For the reasons aforestated, I do not find any substance in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp2009.91