SSK/57 1 WP.191.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 191 OF 2010 Shobha Ganpati Valvi & Anr. ....Petitioners Versus Shashi James & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. A. R. Pitale, Advocate for the petitioners. Smt. Sheetal James and Smt. Monica James, constituted attorneys of respondent No.1 in person. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 18th APRIL, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Pitale, learned counsel for the petitioners and constituted attorneys of respondent no.1 in person. 2. The dispute is in respect of 30 Gunthas of land out of Gut No. 12, Hissa No.1-A situated at Village Yeoor, Tal & Dist. Thane. The respondent no.1 is tenant in the said property. The petitioners, however, encroached on this property and, therefore, the proceeding under Section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948 (in short “the Act”) was taken out by the respondent no.1 against the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the SSK/57 2 WP.191.10 respondent no.1’s application under Section 84C of the Act and evicted the present petitioners from the 30 Gunthas land mentioned above. This order was challenged by the petitioners by filing an appeal before the MRT. However, that appeal is also dismissed holding that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants in the suit property and respondent no.1 is tenant in respect of the said 30 Gunthas land out of Gut No.12/1-A. 3. Mr. Pitale, learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that the respondent no.1 is the tenant in respect of the said 30 Gunthas land out of Gut No.12/1-A. However, he submits that he is in possession of 50 Gunthas out of rest of the land out of Gut No.12/1-A. He submitted that the Circle Officer, Thane had issued notice on 30th December, 2009 directing the petitioners to handover the possession of entire Gut No.12/1- A. This notice is also challenged in the writ petition. He also submitted that the petitioners have filed a representation before the Circle Officer, Thane on 3rd January, 2010 which is annexed at Exhibit “K” page 79. However, this representation is not decided. 4. The respondent no.1’s right to 30 guntas land out of Gut No. 12/1-A is not disputed by the petitioners. The petitioners claim 50 Gunthas land out of Gut No.12/1-A. Their contention is that though the respondent no.1 is entitled for only 30 Gunthas land under the above SSK/57 3 WP.191.10 said notice dated 30th December, 2009, the Circle Officer, Thane, proposed to handover the entire Gut No.12/1-A to the respondent no.1. The petitioners’ representation dated 3rd January, 2010 in this regard is also pending before the Circle Officer, Thane. 5. Thus, Mr. Pitale, learned counsel agrees that the petitioners’ challenge to the impugned order passed by the MRT no more survives and the question remains only of their entitlement to 50 Gunthas land out of Gut No.12/1-A. That issue was not the subject matter before the Sub- Divisional Officer or MRT in proceedings under Section 84-C of the Act. The petitioners for the first time in this Court cannot raise grievance in respect of 50 Gunthas land especially when their representation is pending before the Circle Officer, Thane. In these circumstances, the petition is disposed of by passing the following order: 1. The impugned order is not interfered with and same is confirmed. 2. The respondent no.4-Circle Officer, Thane is directed to decide the petitioners representation dated 3rd January, 2010, a copy of which is annexed at Exhibit “K” page 79 to the petition as expeditiously as possible and in any case SSK/57 4 WP.191.10 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. 3. The said representation shall be decided independently on its own merits after hearing the parties concerned. In the light of the above order, the petition is disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.)