:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1434 OF 2003 Smt. Anjanabai Janardhan Gurav ..Petitioner Vs. 1. Anandrao S.Awale and ors. ..Respondents Mr. S.S. Kulkarni for petitioner. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : April 04, 2008. Date : April 04, 2008. Date : April 04, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Kulkarni the learned counsel for the petitioner. The order passed by the Tahsildar, Baramati on 30/11/1992 was challenged in Tenancy Appeal No.5 of 1993 and the said appeal was allowed on the ground that the mandatory requirements under Section 25(1) and (2) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was not followed, as was evident from the record. The said order has been confirmed by the MRT by dismissing Revision Application No. 109 of 1996 on 29/1/2000. :2: 2. The presumptions drawn by the Tahsildar were found to be contrary to the provisions of Section 14 and under Section 14 a notice of three months was required to be given. Under Section 25(1) of the Act, a notice is required to be given calling upon the defaulter-tenant to remit the compensation charges and as per Section 25(2) of the Act if the charges are not paid for the last three consecutive years, the land could be taken over from the tenant. This requirement was not complied with. The MRT after perusal of the record has confirmed the said reasoning and, therefore, there is no case to interfere with the concurrent view taken by both the authorities below. 3. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the petitioner to file a civil suit to seek the possession of the suit land, in case it is held that the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 are not applicable. :3: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)