1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3544/2011 (SAYYAD ALI MAJID ALI THR. L.R'S & OTHERS VERSUS GANPATHI SANSTHAN & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.B. Mirza, counsel for the petitioners. Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, counsel for the R-1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 23 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 31.03.2011 allowing an application filed by the respondent no.1-Trust under Section 120 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 as also the judgment passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur on 22.06.2011, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners and confirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The respondent no.1-Trust had filed an application under Section 120 of the Act of 1958 for summary eviction of the petitioners. It was the case of the respondent no.1 that the field property in question belonged to the respondent no.1-Trust and the land was given for cultivation to one Sawlaram. After the death of Sawlaram, his legal heirs had surrendered their tenancy rights in favour of the trust by surrender-deed dated 30.01.1997. Since the land was unauthorizedly in possession of the petitioners, the said application was filed. 2 The Sub-Divisional Officer, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the petitioners were not the tenants and the trust was entitled to possession of the land under Section 120 of the Act of 1958. The petitioners challenged the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer in a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, by the impugned judgment dated 22.06.2011, dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners. Both the authorities concurrently found that the evidence on record did not show that the petitioners were the tenants. Except for some entries in the 7/12 extract in the name of Majid Ali, there was no other evidence in the nature of a lease agreement or any similar document to prove that the petitioners were the tenants. Though it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that certain document produced by the petitioners was not considered by the authorities, the document is not filed along with the writ petition. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that only the Tahsildar had jurisdiction to decide the issue of tenancy under Section 100 of the Act was rightly negatived by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in AIR 1970 Bombay 366 (Kashiram Shriram Doble Versus Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur & another) holding that the Collector has jurisdiction under Section 120 of the Act of 1958 to look into the matter and decide whether it is a dispute regarding unauthorized occupation or wrongful possession or in substance, a dispute regarding tenancy. In the instant case, since the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Maharashtra Revenue 3 Tribunal found that there was no substance in the plea of the petitioners that they were the tenants of the property, there was no reason to refer the matter to the Tahsildar. Since the orders passed by the authorities do not suffer from any jurisdictional error, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE