IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1301 OF 1993 Smt.Akkatai Bhimgonda Patil ...Petitioner V/s. Ganpati Maharaj Panchayatan Sanstha Sangli through its Manager ...Respondent. Mr.S.G. Karandikar with Mr.P.D. Pise for the Petitioner. Mr.T.S. Ingale for Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 26TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. : 1. This petition is filed to challenge the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 20-10-1992 whereby the revision application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The dispute in the present case relates to the agricultural lands bearing Survey No.490 admeasuring 5 H 41 Ares and Survey No.592 admeasuring 7 Ares (‘suit land’ for short). The respondents (‘trustees of a trust’) are the landlords and the petitioner is the tenant of the suit land. In the year 1962, 32-G proceedings were initiated suo-motto by the Tahsildar, with a view to refix the purchase price in respect of the suit lands. However, by an order dated 2-6-1962, the proceedings were dropped as the suit lands belonged to a Trust, for which 32-G proceedings were not applicable. 3. Thereafter, some time in the year 1982 at the instance of the petitioner once again 32-G proceedings were initiated in respect of the suit land and the said proceedings were also dropped on 6-2-1982, in view of dropping similar proceedings in the year 1962. 4. Thereafter, it appears that in the year 1985, the petitioner once again moved the Tahsildar seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act and by an order dated 28-5-1985 the Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T., Miraj allowed the application and purported to fix the purchase price of the suit land in the sum of Rs.15,122/-. 5. Challenging the said order, the respondents filed an appeal being Tenancy Appeal No.25 of 1985 in the Court of Assistant Collector, Miraj and by judgment and order dated 30-3-1988, the Assistant Collector was pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T., Miraj. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred revision application before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and by the impugned order dated 20-10-1992, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the revision application filed by the petitioner. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present petition is filed. 6. The only argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the fact that proceedings under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act were dropped in the past would not preclude the petitioner from seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 32-G, because in such a case the principles of res-judicata are not applicable. Accordingly, it is contended that the Additional Tahsildar & A.L.T. was justified in entertaining the application under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act. 7. There is no merit in the above contention. Once the competent authority has dropped the proceedings initiated under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act on the ground that those provisions are not applicable in respect of the Trust property, the question of reagitating the very same issue did not arise at all. Neither before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal nor before this Court, the Petitioner has brought any material to show that the provisions of Section 32-G is applicable to the trust property. In this view of the matter, findings recorded by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that the provisions of res-judicata were applicable to the facts of the present case and accordingly dismissing the revision application, cannot be faulted. 8. For all the aforesaid reasons, the petition fails. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. J.P. DEVADHAR, J.