1 wp9829-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9829 OF 2010 Pandurang Rambhau Khade .. Petition versus Moreshwar Gajanan Mulekar .. Respondent Mr.Rajiv L. Patil i/by Mr.Onkar Warange for the petitioner. Mr.Jeetendra Sachdev for respondent No.1. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 5th August 2011. P.C.: . This petition is directed against an order passed by the President of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay dated 8th November 2010, in Revision Application No.166/B/2008. 2 The revision application was directed against the order passed on 17th March 2008 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Special Economic Zone, Uran, District Raigad. He dismissed the Revision Application bearing No.6 of 2006 preferred by the present petitioner. 2 wp9829-10.sxw 3 Mr.Patil appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the Tribunal has only adverted to one aspect of the matter, viz., whether the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction within time and whether the Special Land Acquisition Officer was justified in dismissing the revision application. 4 According to Mr.Patil, however, it cannot be over looked that the petitioner approached the authorities under section 84-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, on account of the observations in the order dated 31st July 1993 of the Additional Tahsildar and Agricultural Land Tribunal, Khalapur. He observed that on verification of the 7/12 extract, it is noticed that land in question is actually in possession of the applicants before him, namely, Moreshwar Gajanan Mulekar and Gajanan Sitaram Mulekar. It has been personally cultivated by them from 1965 to 1992. It is necessary, therefore, that at the time of fixing purchase price, the land should be personally cultivated by the tenant-purchaser, but, it is not in active possession of the petitioner opponent and not personally cultivated by him. Therefore, purchase price could not be fixed in the name of the petitioner before me. The remedy of the opponent was to get the 3 wp9829-10.sxw possession of the land within two years and, therefore, an application under section 84A of the Act for getting the possession should have been filed. Holding thus, he dropped the proceedings under section 32G of the Act. 5 It is in pursuance of this liberty, according to Mr.Patil that the application has been made and which application has been rejected, firstly, by Tahsildar, Khalapur, but, not on merits and only on the ground that the petitioner could not substantiate and prove the allegations therein. Further, the order dated 15th September 2003 of the Tahsildar was questioned by filing a revision application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Special Land Acquisition Officer has dismissed the same. In these circumstances, it is not as if the petitioner had opportunity to satisfy either the Tahsildar or the Special Land Acquisition Officer that the claim made is valid in law as well as on facts. In these circumstances, the Tribunal should not have dismissed the revision application preferred by the petitioner. 6 After having perused the impugned orders, I am of the opinion that no interference is required in writ jurisdiction as the conclusion of 4 wp9829-10.sxw the Tribunal cannot be said to be vitiated by any error apparent on the face of the record. The remedy of the petitioner even if the Tahsildar and Sub Divisional Officer has observed so, in the given facts and circumstances, was not to invoke section 84A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 as that is a provision relating to validation of transfers made before the appointed date. Even if it could be said that there is any error and the application was invoking section 84A of the said Act, yet, what the petitioner was required to show was his previous possession and cultivation and on that basis he could have sought appropriate relief. He has misconstrued the order passed by the Tahsildar and the observations therein and proceeded on erroneous basis that his remedy was to make the application invoking aforementioned provision. In these circumstances, the orders under challenge do not require any interference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, it is clarified that, if the petitioner institute any substantive proceedings in pursuance of the order of the Tahsildar, Khalapur dated 31st July 1993, so also the liberty given by this Court, it would be open for him to make appropriate application seeking to exclude the time spent in the proceedings and particularly, in pursuing Tenancy Application No.7 of 2002 and two revision applications before 5 wp9829-10.sxw the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, so also, the writ petition before this Court. I have no doubt in my mind that if such an application is made, the appropriate forum/authority, will duly consider the same and pass orders after hearing all parties in accordance with law. Keeping open all such contentions, petition is disposed off. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)