1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8459 OF 2009 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar i/b Khandeparkar & Associates for the petitioners. Mr.S.A. Sawant for the respondent . CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 28th June 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The present writ petition arises out of a proceeding under section 32­G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (for short “B.T. & A.L. Act”) wherein the petitioners were held not to be the tenants of the suit land on the tiller’s day. 2 3. The Trial Court (Agricultural Land Tribunal), the Appellate Court (Sub­Divisional Officer) and the revisional Court (Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal) have all concurrently held that the petitioners or their father was not a tenant of the suit land on the tiller’s day. This is a possible finding of fact and in the absence of any manifest error or perversity cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 4. I have perused the record and in my view, the finding recorded by the authorities is not only a possible finding but would probably be the only finding which could have been reached by them in the proceedings. The petitioners’ father claimed to be a tenant. The respondent also claimed to be a tenant. In Regular Suit No.50 of 1973 heard by the learned Civil Judge at Malwan and the issue regarding tenancy had arisen. That issue was referred to Mamlatdar under section 85 of the B.T. & A.L. Act. The Mamlatdar held that the respondent was the tenant of the suit land. 3 That finding was not appealed against and has become final. Consequently, the petitioners’ father could not be tenant. In my view, therefore, the finding recorded by the Authorities is the correct finding of fact. No interference is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)