1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.1706 OF 2009 Maggie D’Mello and others ..Petitioners. Vs. State of Maharashtra and another ..Respondents. .... Mr. Dilip Rai with Ms. Khyati Thaker for the Petitioners. Ms Smita Gaidhani, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr. Anirudha A. Joshi i/b Ms Ashwini Hosing for Respondent No.2. .... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 7th December, 2009. P.C. : The order passed by the State Government under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code principally relies upon two circumstances in holding that the Petitioners had not made out any case. Firstly, the Petitioners had themselves instituted proceedings before the Civil Court which stand concluded against the Petitioners. Secondly, the land being part of the limits of Mumbai Municipal Corporation the claim of the Petitioners to protected tenancy was not maintainable. Insofar as the first aspect of the 2 matter is concerned, the suit instituted by the Petitioners (S.C. Suit 6954 of 1985) was dismissed by the Learned Trial Judge in the City Civil Court on 18th December, 2000. That order has attained finality. Even during the pendency of the suit, the proceedings had come up before this Court at the interlocutory stage when the Court had held that the Petitioners had failed to establish even a prima facie case on the basis of possession. By that as it may, the suit as noted earlier has been dismissed. Insofar as the second aspect of the matter is concerned, Section 43-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 provides that nothing contained in Sections 31 to 32- R (both inclusive) shall apply to lands in the area within the limits of Greater Mumbai. The lands admittedly are situated within the municipal limits of Greater Mumbai. In the circumstances, no case is made out for the interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on the order which has been passed in the course of revenue proceedings. The Petition shall stand dismissed. ****