*1* wp.6954.10.930.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6954 OF 2010 Bhiksen Vishnu Koyande and another. ..Petitioners -Versus- Rajaram Vishram Koyande and another. ..Respondents .......... Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar i/b Khandeparkar & Associates, for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 05th July, 2011. P.C.: 1 This Writ Petition is directed against the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 27.04.2010, by which the Petitioners’ revision application has been dismissed. The said revision was filed against the order passed on 09.03.2004 in Tenancy Appeal No. 4/2001 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, so also, the order dated 17.09.1972 passed in Tenancy Case being ALTE-657 by the Additional Tahasildar & Agricultural Land Tribunal. 2 It is common ground that the order passed on 17.09.1972 recorded that the Respondents’ predecessors-in-title were tenants of 2 Guntas of house property, the purchase price of which cannot be fixed under Section 32G and hence postponed the proceedings under Section 17B of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Thereafter, the mutation entry for 2 Gunthas house site was made in the record of rights way back in 1972. The predecessor of the Petitioners herein did not dispute that entry nor the order and it is only the Petitioners who stepped *2* wp.6954.10.930.sxw in his shoe sought to reopen it after a period of 30 years by filing an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer. He dismissed this appeal on 09.03.2004 relying on this very fact and observing that after 30 years the appeal has been filed and such findings cannot be reopened after lapse of such a long duration. This finding of fact which is confirmed by the Tribunal. 3 In such circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention of Mr.Khandeparkar that Section 17B and impact of the same on the postponement of the proceedings and the nature of the land covered by the same, have been ignored by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had before it the findings of fact which were consistent with the order passed in 1972 and which was undisturbed for 30 long years. In such circumstances, in my view, the Tribunal committed no error in dismissing the revision application of the Petitioner. There is no reason to interfere with the findings of fact confirmed by the Tribunal in this Writ Petition more particularly because neither the same is vitiated by error of law apparent on the face of record or perversity. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)