*1* wp.1428.85.913.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1428 OF 1985 Hiru Bhaga Karale (decd.) and others. ..Petitioners -Versus- Gangubai Shankar Bhera (decd.) and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.S.G.Karandikar, for the Petitioners. Mr.R.S.Apte with Mr.Ashutosh R. Gole, for the Respondents. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 09th August, 2011. P.C.: 1 This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.08.1984 of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai. The Tribunal dismissed the Petitioners’ revision application and confirmed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 25.03.1983 in Tenancy Appeal No.33/1981. The Tenancy Appeal was filed by the present Petitioners’ predecessor, namely, Hiru Bhaga Karale challenging the order dated 09.10.1981 of the Additional Tahasildar & Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Kalyan. As noted by the appellate and the revisional authorities, the proceedings have chequered history. In the earlier round, the suo-motu proceedings under section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 were initiated in the year 1964 by the Additional Tahasildar & ALT. He fixed the purchase price in respect of the subject land. That was in favour of the Petitioners’ predecessor. It is stated that the purchase price was paid in lump sum on 15.11.1973 and a certificate of purchase under section 32M *2* wp.1428.85.913.sxw was also granted in his favour on 07.01.1979. The said order fixing the purchase price dated 31.03.1964 was challenged in appeal by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and they claimed to be the real tenants. They contended that they had no individual notices much less the public notice and they were lawfully cultivating the land prior to 01.04.1957. The Additional Collector who heard the said appeal, passed an order dated 29.11.1976 and condoned the delay and remanded the case for a fresh hearing in accordance with law with liberty to both sides to produce additional evidence. This remand order was confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal, therefore, by its order dated 11.05.1978 dismissed the revision application. Accordingly, on remand, the Tahasildar issued both individual and public notices. The Respondent Nos.3 to 15 before the Sub-Divisional Officer came to be added having interest in the land being ex-landlords. Some preliminary points were raised and the statements were recorded. During the course of the same, the Petitioners’ predecessor (Hari Bhaga Karale) produced the sale deed to substantiate his contention that his father (Bhaga) purchased the suit land by a registered sale deed dated 10.01.1940. 2 Thus, the dispute was between two rival claimants, namely, the Petitioners’ predecessor claiming to be tenant and at the same time, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were also claiming to be tenants. The Tahasildar, after considering the entire material on record, came to the conclusion that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are lawful tenants and that the Petitioners’ predecessor was not a tenant. 3 This order has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority, so also, by the Tribunal and that is why this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4 Mr.Karandikar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, *3* wp.1428.85.913.sxw contended that by the impugned order what has been decided is that the sale deed in favour of the Petitioners’ predecessor is invalid and illegal. That such sale deed does not confer any right, title and interest in the immovable property in favour of the Petitioners. If the sale deed was to be termed as illegal and invalid, that finding could have been rendered only after the parties to the sale deed were examined and the vendors/ex- landlords disowned the transaction. It could not be that the authorities under the Tenancy Act give a finding with regard to the validity of the sale deed. There is no question of the Petitioners’ predecessor approaching the civil court. None came forward to dispute and deny the sale deed which as far back of 1940. In these circumstances, at the instance of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, no finding could have been recorded nullifying the sale deed. For all these reasons, the impugned order be set aside. 5 Having perused the impugned order with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the opinion that no interference is required therein. 6 The written statement was filed by Suryaji Shantaram and Jayant Shivaji Pisal. They stated that the father of Respondent No.1 (Kamlu) was given the land for cultivation. He was paying the rent and the present Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are tenants cultivating the lands as heirs of the original deceased tenant. The Petitioners had no concern with the suit land. They confirmed that the records also mention the names of the father of the Respondent No.1 and the grand-father of the Respondent No2 as on the cut-off date. The ex-landlord has also emphatically stated that the land has been in possession of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. The reference has been made to the Panchanama, which shows that the physical possession is of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. The landlords accepted them to be tenants which stands corroborated by their *4* wp.1428.85.913.sxw statements and the tenancy register. Beyond their testimonies, the Petitioners could not produce anything to dispute this fact. The Petitioners’ predecessor’s deposition came to be recorded in which he admitted that he was not knowing that his father had purchased the suit land till he filed civil suit in 1976. He did not know whether, the land was in possession of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the deposition only says that they had no concern therewith. He does not make an emphatic statement that the land was in cultivation of his father or he ever cultivated the same and if so, since when. If the land was purchased by the Petitioners’ predecessor as far back in 1940 and he does not know anything about the same till 1976, then, it goes to show that he is unaware of anything in relation to the said land. The statement is such that the Petitioners’ predecessor (Hari Karale) went to the extent of disowning the landlord. Therefore, if the sale deed has been executed by his father, then, naturally he would know the vendor and owner of the land. If the father of the Petitioners’ predecessor is purchaser and there is sale deed in relation to the agricultural land, then, it was naturally assumed that he would give details of the vendor. However, he says that he does not know who are the owners and whether, Pisals were owners thereof. In these circumstances and when he admits the possession of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, that all authorities concurrently found that there is no merit in the case and what the Petitioners’ predecessor is doing is to approbate and reprobate. In one breath he claims ownership and in another breath, tenancy. Finding that the statements were not corroborated by any material, that the proceedings have been rightly concluded against the present Petitioners. 7 The concurrent orders of the Tahasildar & ALT, the Sub- Divisional Officer and that of the Tribunal, do not suffer from any error *5* wp.1428.85.913.sxw apparent or perversity and each of the findings and conclusions therein are given after complete scrutiny of the material on record and that this is not a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is, accordingly, discharged. 8 However, it is unfortunate that this Writ Petition which was pending in this Court from 1985 has been disposed of in the year 2011. Interim stay granted by this Court stands vacated forthwith. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)