1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.284/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5867/2010 SHANKAR MELKELWAR ..VS.. STATE OF MAH AND ANOR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.S. Nandanwar adv for appellant Mr. P.D. Kothari, AGP for respondent no.1 Miss. T.. Udeshi adv for R-2 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 10, 2011. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 13.10.2010 directing the appellant to take all necessary steps for restoration of possession of the field in question to the respondent no.2 as early as possible. Two grounds have been raised by the appellant while challenging the judgment passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 13.10.2010 and the order in appeal dated 8.12.2010 in Writ Petition No.5867/2010. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ought not have directed the restoration of possession of the field to the respondent no.2 as respondent no.2 is the owner of another land at Pachgaon. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellant that the respondent no.2 has not given any undertaking before 2 the Tahsildar that he would cultivate the land personally and would pay such an amount to the tribal transferee as the Collector would determine. The submission made on behalf of the appellant are liable to to be rejected for the reason that these grounds have not been raised by the appellant before any of the authorities. The appellant had not raised the aforesaid grounds either before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal or before the learned Single Judge. The question whether the respondent no.2 owns another piece of land at Pachgaon cannot be therefore considered for the first time while deciding the letters patent appeal. Even in regard to the second ground about the absence of undertaking by the respondent no.2 to cultivate the land personally, it is necessary to note that the application filed by the respondent no.2 before the Tahsildar Rajura shows that the land in question is the only source of income of the respondent no.2 and since the appellant has illegally taken the possession of the land the respondent no.2 is without any source of income. In such circumstances, since the respondent no.2 does not possess any other piece of land for earning their livelihood, the respondent no.2 has sought the restoration of the possession of the land in question. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 states that the respondent no.2 would personally cultivate the land and a specific undertaking in that regard would be furnished, if it 3 is not so furnished by the respondent no.2 before the Tahsildar. Since the respondent no.2 has stated in the application that the land in question is the only source of income to him and the same should be restored to him so that he could earn his livelihood, it is clear that the respondent no.2 intends to cultivate the land personally. Since there is no substance in the grounds raised by the appellant, the letters patent appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. The respondent no.2 shall however pay the compensation to the appellant as fixed by the Collector towards the restoration of the land. JUDGE JUDGE SMP