1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3543 OF 1991. Rupvant S/o Shravan Kamble, Age 40 years, R/o Saramkundi, Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad. 3. The Deputy Collector, L.R. Osmanabad. 4. The Land Acquistion Officer, No.(2), Osmanabad. 5. Laxman S/o Janu Dhaigude, 6. Chandrabhan S/o Yeshwant Gaikwad, Age 55 years. 7. Narhari S/o Yeshwant Gaikwad, Age 45 years. 8. Vishwanath S/o Yeshwant Gaikwad, Age 50 years, All occupation agriculture, R/o Saramkundi, Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad. ... Respondents. ... 2 Mr.P.V.Mandlik, Sr. counsel for the petitioner. Mr.V.G.Mete, advocate for the Respondent Nos.5 to 8. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, A.G.P. for the State. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 11.03.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns judgment and order rendered by learned Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) in Case No.95/A/90/0, whereby and whereunder judgment rendered by Deputy Collector (L.R.), Osmanabad in File No.85/TNC/98/A/5 was reversed. 2. The petitioner filed application U/s 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, alleging that his father by name Gangaram Kamble and father of the Respondent No.5 by name Janu Dhaigude were jointly cultivating the lands bearing S.Nos.59, 60, 61 and 62. His father was tenant to the extent of 50% of the lands which were subsequently allotted S.No.59/A, 60-A, 60-B, 6l-A and 62-A. He asserted that all the four 3 lands were previously held by one Balwant S/o Kalyanrao as landlord. He was the Inamdar of the said lands. The half portion of northern side was being cultivated by his father i.e. Gangaram as a tenant, whereas remaining southern half portion was being cultivated by Janu Dhaigude. The Respondent Nos.6 to 8 are the sons of Janu's sister. He contended that he was illegally dispossessed somewhere in 1983 by the Respondent Nos.5 to 8. Consequently, he filed applications for restoration of possession U/s 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (For short, "HT & AL Act"). The Respondent Nos.5 to 8 resisted the application. They denied that deceased Gangaram was tenant in respect of northern half share of the lands in question. They also denied that the petitioner was in continuous possession of the said northern half share as a tenant and was illegally dispossessed by them in or about 1983. They submitted that they were in possession of the entire lands and that the certificate of statutory ownership was granted in their favour after abolition of the Inams. They submitted that the petitioner had 4 filed false application in order to deprive them of their legal possession. 3. The learned Deputy Collector (L.R.) allowed the application. He held that the petitioner's father was in possession of the lands in question of which tenancy was explicit from the record. Feeling aggrieved, the Respondent Nos.5 to 8 preferred Revision Application. The appeal was allowed by the MRT vide the impugned judgment and order. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.P. 5. It appears that proceedings were initiated after enforcement of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1955 It emerges from the record that the learned Deputy Collector (L.R.) in file No.1983/Desk/TNC/Inam/6, rendered finding that the Respondent No.6 and deceased Janu were entitled to occupancy rights in respect of land S.No.59 and S.No.60. On perusal of the relevant copy of the judgment, it 5 is amply clear that they were declared as occupants in respect of both the lands, whereas the petitioner was not found to be the occupant of either of the said land. It is true that the petitioner was not a party to the said proceedings. Still, however, the fact remains that the petitioner never tried to obtain occupancy rights. Copy of the occupancy certificate (Exh.E) purports to show that occupancy rights in respect of S.No.6l, to the extent of 3 parcels of the land as shown therein, was declared in favour of Respondent No.6 Chandrabhan. 6. All said and done, one fact is clear. The lands in question were the Deshmuki inams. The inams were abolished w.e.f. 1.7.1960 under provisions of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act. In "Bhiva S/o Gangaram Landge and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others" 2004 (3) Mh.L.J.609, a Single Bench of this Court categorically held that where the lands were governed by provisions of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 6 the provisions of HT & AL Act were not applicable in relation to such lands. So also, In "Sandu alias Jamaluddin Madarbhai and another Vs. Maruti S/o Trimbak and another" 2005 (1) Mh.L.J.521, a Single Bench of this Court held that where landlord tenant relationship is not established, proceedings U/s 98 of the HT & AL Act can not be resorted to and, therefore, the Deputy Collector had no power, authority and jurisdiction to entertain the application U/s 98 of the HT & AL Act. In the present case, the petitioner has not filed any certificate of tenancy issued U/s 38-E or any other provisions of the HT & AL Act. What appears from the record is that the Respondent Nos.5 to 8 entered into the lands in question after declaration of the occupancy rights in favour of the Respondent Nos.5 and 6. In any case, their possession can not be regarded as that of "unauthorised persons". The proceedings U/s 98 can not be initiated against the persons who claim possession under certain statutory rights or the rights having semblance to legal origin. In this view of the matter, it is difficult to say that the MRT committed any 7 patent error while allowing the appeal vide the impugned judgment. No perversity is noticed in the impugned judgment and findings of the MRT. Needless to say, the petition falls outside the pale of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The issues regarding the rights of the petitioner to challenge the occupancy certificates or proceedings are kept open. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp354391