1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3110 OF 2010. Sau. Vimal K. Lawange -: VERSUS :- M.R.T. Nagpur and others. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3112 OF 2010. Prakash Tulshiram Suradkar -: VERSUS :- M.R.T. Nagpur and others. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3240 OF 2010. Shivaji Tryambak Gawande -: VERSUS :- M.R.T. Nagpur and others. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3241 OF 2010. Vinodsingh Hanumansingh Rajput -: VERSUS :- M.R.T. Nagpur and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 06, 2010. Heard Shri A.V. Gawande, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri Fulzele, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri S.R. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent no.4 in all the petitions. Challenge is to judgment dated 24.06.2010 delivered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Tenancy Revision under Section 111 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands [Vidarbha Region] Act. The Maharashtra 2 Revenue Tribunal has found that the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 01.02.2008 impugned before it was in accordance with law and no case was made out by the present petitioner for condonation of delay. Contention of Shri Gawande, learned counsel is, the relief of condonation of delay is discretionary and that discretion was exercised in favour of petitioners on 25.07.2007. The order condoning delay ought to have been challenged in appeal or revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and there could not have been any reconsideration by the Sub Divisional Officer himself in the matter. In the alternative, he has contended that the finding that petitioners received copy of order passed by the Tahsildar in 2004, in the year 2006, is itself incorrect. To substantiate this, he has invited attention to a protest reply lodged by the present respondent that the Talathi has unauthorisedly supplied copy of the order placed by them on record, to petitioner. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent no.4 on the other hand has supported the impugned order. He states that the proceedings in respect of ownership initiated by respondent no.4 against the original landlord [Rajput Family] were answered in favour of tenant and then 3 Rajput Family sold away the property to Patil and Pise. Petitioners purchased the property subsequently from them, hence, the petitioners have no locus to interfere in the matter. He has further contended that when Sub Divisional Officer found that the delay was condoned behind the back of present respondent no.4, the relevant facts have been re- appreciated by the Sub Divisional Officer while passing the impugned order and hence the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has correctly upheld that order. He has also invited attention to the fact that Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has itself considered the relevant dates and found that there was no justification on the part of the petitioners in approaching the Sub Divisional Officer belatedly. Learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 has supported the order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The facts clearly show that the order of Tahsildar dated 31.01.2004 was assailed before the Sub Divisional Officer in Appeal under Section 107 of the Tenancy Act, in the year 2007. The date of knowledge disclosed then is 18.05.2007. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has independently found that copy of impugned order dated 31.01.2004 was received by the petitioner in 2006. This fact is not in dispute before this Court. Only contention is, it was 4 a photostat copy. The reliance on the complaint lodged by respondent no.4 with Tahsildar on 20.06.2007 for said purpose also shows that the petitioners have received the said copy and therefore, had knowledge in 2006 itself. The petitioners have not filed appeal immediately after getting knowledge. The fact that petitioners were not party to the proceedings before the lower Authority i.e. Tahsildar, is also considered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. As already noted above, petitioners are subsequent purchasers. Petitioners appears to have purchased the property from one Suraj Anil Patil and Pise on 07.06.2003 and, Patil and Pise have in turn purchased the property from original landlords [Rajput Family] prior to that. Petitioners have also deleted original owners i.e. members of Rajput Family before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. During hearing, petitioners were asked to hand over possession to respondent no.4 without prejudice to their contentions and only to show their bonafides. However, petitioners have not accepted that offer. I do not find any thing wrong in the consideration of issues by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. There is no jurisdictional error. Petitions are rejected, with no order as to costs. 5 Shri Gawande, learned counsel states that the possession of petitioners is protected till today and same should be continued for a further period of four weeks. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent is opposing the prayer. However, in the interest of justice, interim order protecting the possession of petitioner to continue till 18.11.2010 and the same shall cease to operate automatically thereafter. JUDGE Rgd.