1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 239 OF 2010 Sudhakar Vithal Todankar and another .. Petitioners Vs. Pramod Sudam Hedulkar .. Respondent Mr. R. B. Parab for the petitioners Mr. P. P. Kulkarni for the respondent CORAM: SHRI R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 8 th FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C. 1. The petitioners had filed an application before the Tahsildar, Shrivardhan praying that the names of the petitioners be recorded as persons cultivating the land, more particularly set out in the application filed by the petitioners. That application came to be dismissed by an order dated 1 st December, 2003. The proceedings were filed at various stages to challenge the said order so as to seek favourable order in their favour. In as much as the last order was passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai 2 in Appeal/Desk/R.T.S. Revision No. 267 of 20089. By this order, the learned Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division rejected the Application filed by the petitioner by his order dated 17 th August, 2009 and in a way confirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar, Shrivardhan. Against the said order dated 17 th August, 2009 the petitioners have filed this petition. 2. I have heard learned Advocates of both the sides. 3. In the original application, a request is made that the names of the petitioners be shown as persons cultivating the land. The Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division has rightly observed that there is no mention in the application as to in what capacity the petitioners are cultivating the land. The record before this court clearly indicate that the petitioners have not been able to make out the case that they are in possession of the land in question. Mere assertion that the petitioners are in possession is not sufficient. It must get support from the material, which could be placed before the concerned authorities. The entries in 7/12 extract which have a prima facie value are against the interest of the petitioners and that is how the Tahsildar, Shrivardhan has, in my view, rightly come to the 3 conclusion that the application filed by the petitioners required rejection. The view of the Tahsildar, shrivardhan is confirmed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division in terms of his order dated 17 th august, 2009. 4. I do not see any infirmity in the order impugned viz. the order dated 17 th August, 2009. Hence, the petition is required to be dismissed. 5. It was also argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the petitioners intend to file civil suit so as to establish their rights. If it is possible for the petitioners to file civil suit, the petitioners may do so. Undoubtedly, the said suit shall be attended to by the Civil Court on merits of the matter. 6. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. ( R. Y. GANOO, J. ) jpc/-