1 wp7175-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7175 OF 2010 Yashwant Mahipati Pingal (deceased) through Lrs. Bajiram Yashwant Pingal ..Petitioner. Vs Shivram Yasu Ghorpade (deceased) Lrs. Chindhu Shivram Ghorpad ..Respondent. -- Mr.S.M.Mirajkar, for petitioner. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 13 th DECEMBER, 2010 P.C: The petitioners are the legal representatives of the landlord and the respondent is the legal representative of alleged tenant. The father of respondent made an application under Section 32(G) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as “the said Act”). The said application was rejected. An appeal was preferred by the predecessor of the respondent. The said appeal was allowed and a direction was issued to the Tahsildar to fix the price of the suit land in accordance with Section 32(G) of the said Act. The said order of the appellate Authority has been confirmed in the Revision Application filed by the petitioner. 2 wp7175-10.sxw 2] On the basis of the said orders, the price was fixed by the Tahsilder and the respondent was directed to deposit the price. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by preferring an appeal and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. Revision Application preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed. 3] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the agricultural land was the Inam land which was re-granted on 15 th January, 1968. He submitted that application ought to have been made by the predecessor of the respondent within one year from the said date. He submitted that the illegality cannot be ignored as, admittedly, the land was re-granted in February, 1968. 4] As stated earlier, the order under Section 32(G) of the said Act directing the Tahsildar to fix the price has attained finality. The said order holds that the father of the respondent has become a deemed purchaser of the suit land on the tiller’s day. What is challenged in this petition is the subsequent order of fixing price under Section 32-G of the said Act. In view of the fact that the earlier order has become final, this is not a fit case where writ jurisdiction can be invoked. Writ Petition is rejected. [A.S.OKA, J]