-: 1 :- rpw-180/10. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 180 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6597 OF 2009 and WRIT PETITION NO. 6084 OF 2010 Shivaji Dadu Mane and Anr. ..Petitioners. Versus Dasharath Devla Dubli and Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. G. R. Rege i/b Mr. G. J. Sabnis for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Anturkar for respondent no.1.i/b D. J. Lulia for respondent no.1. Mr. Rajesh Kachare for respondent no.2. Mr. A. I. Patel, AGP for respondent no.15. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : December 1, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Rege and Mr. Anturkar learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.1 respectively. Both the aforesaid writ petitions came to be dismissed vide order dated 12th August 2010. The present review petition is filed for the review of the said order. 2. One Kalya Dubli, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents was the tenant in the land in question, namely, Survey No. 111/1, Hissa No. 1(Pt) corresponding to CTS. No. 179 [for short “the said land”] on tillers’ day. This land was purchased under the provisions of section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [for short “the BT&L Act”] in the year 1965 and thereafter certificate under section 32- srp -: 2 :- rpw-180/10. M of the BT&L Act came to be granted. 3. The said land was transferred by way of lease in favour of 4 persons [for short, “the Purchasers”]. There is no dispute that the land acquired in the proceedings under section 32-G of the BT&L Act, cannot be transferred without prior permission of the Collector under the provisions of section 43 of the BT&L Act. The said land was transferred by Devla and Vesta, two sons of Kalya in favour of the Purchasers. Mr. Rege, learned counsel contended that the transfers are void. On the contrary, it was contention of Mr. Anturkar, learned counsel that the transfers are not hit by section 43 of the BT&L Act. It was Mr. Anturkar’s contention that Kalya, the original tenant who became owner in pursuance of proceedings under section 32-G of the BT&L Act, was alive when transfers were made in favour of the Purchasers by his sons – Devla and Vesta and therefore, this transfer will not bind Kalya. Consequently there is no question of violations of provisions of section 43 of the BT&L Act. While disposing of the aforesaid writ petitions, reliance was placed on the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph 7 of Writ Petition No. 6084 of 2010 that Kalya died during the pendency of the proceedings under section 43. On the basis of this statement, I have held that Devla and Vesta, sons of Kalya, have no right of whatsoever nature in the said land during the lifetime of Kalya and -: 3 :- rpw-180/10. therefore transfer is without any authority and cannot bind Kalya. 4. Mr. Rege, learned counsel for the petitioners has preferred the present review petition on the sole contention that since Vesta died on 18/6/1964 and Kalya died on 12/11/1964 and Devla is still alive, it cannot be said that the transfers were made during the lifetime of Kalya. Mr. Anturkar, learned counsel for the respondents, however, relied upon statement in paragraph no.2 of the judgment of MRT in Tenancy Appeal Nos. 160, 161, 162 and 163 of 1994, under which the said land was transferred by Devla and Vesta. As stated above, Vesta died on 18/6/1964, i.e., prior to the death of his father-Kalya. Kalya died on 12/11/1964. Obviously, therefore, Devla and Vesta must have sold the said land prior to 18/6/1964, i.e., before the death of Vesta. Mr. Rege could not point out any material which would show that Kalya had died prior to the transfer of the said land in favour of the Purchasers. No case is made out for review. Review petition is therefore dismissed. 5. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, parties are directed to maintain status quo for the period of two weeks from today. (RANJIT MORE, J.)