IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 2580 OF 1991 WRIT PETITION NO. 2580 OF 1991 WRIT PETITION NO. 2580 OF 1991 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2888 of 2008. CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2888 of 2008. CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2888 of 2008. Mr Ramnath Vinayak Chogle ..Petitioner. Vs. M/s Veekaylal Investment Co Pvt Ltd and Ors ..Respondents. Mr G. V. Nagarsheth, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms U. K. Shah i/b K. D. Shah for Respondent No.1. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 19th January,2009. DATED: 19th January,2009. DATED: 19th January,2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondent. Perused petition. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 22.1.1991 passed by the Deputy Collector (Appeals) in File No. C/RTS/A-44/90 contending that the judgment and order dated 13th April, 1990 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bombay, Suburban District Old Custom House Yard, Fort, Bombay (S.D.O.) in Appeal No. EAK/DR-44 dated 18.3.1969 filed under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (M.L.R.C.for short) is bad and illegal and liable to be set aside. 3. The petitioners are claiming to be the owners of the property contending that their names were rightly mutated and that the mutation entry was wrongly set aside by the S.D.O. in appeal. That the appeal was entertained condoning delay without proper satisfaction. 4. The entire dispute revolves around the mutation entry. The learned counsel for the Petitioner is neither in a position to point out any evidence relating to the possession of the trust nor could he produce any document showing title over the property. On the contrary, the respondents claim to have purchased the property in a court auction. This finding of fact is affirmed by both the Courts below. No material is produced to dislodge this finding of fact. No case is made out to show that the concurrent finding of fact is either arbitrary or perverse. 5. In the above view of the matter, no case is made out to interfere in the impugned order. Petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. 6. In view of disposal of the writ petition, Civil Application No.2888 of 2008 is disposed of with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)