22.06.wp1577.2011.odt 1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1577/2011. Durvasgir s/o Hiragir Giri and another -vs- Sub Divisional Officer, Darwha, Tq. Darwha, Dist. Yavatmal and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. R.M. Pande, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED: 22/06/2011. The above writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order dated 11.02.2011 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, by which order the two revision applications filed by the petitioners being Tenancy Revision No.TEN-B-41/2010 and Tenancy Revision No.TEN- B-16/2010, came to be rejected. The petitioners claim to be the tenants of the land in question being Gat No. 377 (Old Survey No. 161/2) and Gat No. 436 (Old Survey No. 175) of Mouza Adgaon, Tahsil Ner, District Yavatmal. The said land was owned by Smt. Laxmibai wd/o Mukundrao Deshmukh of whom the respondents no.2 to 8 are the legal heirs. The said Natthugir s/o Madhavgir Giri, predecessor of the petitioners, had initiated proceedings for declaring him as a tenant 22.06.wp1577.2011.odt 2/5 under Section 43 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958. The Tahsildar by his order dated 21.04.1969 had allowed the said application. Thereafter the matter was carried in appeal by the respondent in which the declaration came to be confirmed. Thereafter the matter was carried in revision in which the revisional authority set aside the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar as well as the Sub Divisional Officer, against which the petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No.159/1971 in this Court, which came to be dismissed by order dated 05.10.1972. Hence, in so far as the issue of declaration of tenancy is concerned, the same stands concluded by this Court by holding that the predecessor of the petitioner i.e. Natthugir was not a tenant of the land in question. The landlord after the said proceedings in respect of the declaration of tenancy were concluded, filed an application for summary eviction under Section 120 (c) of the Bombay Tenancy Act in the year 1974. By that time, the petitioners had stepped into the shoes of the original tenant i.e. the said Natthugir. The petitioners initially objected to the said proceedings under Section 120 (c) of the Bombay Tenancy Act by contending that the same were barred by limitation. The Sub Divisional Officer 22.06.wp1577.2011.odt 3/5 overruled the said objection, against which the petitioner had filed revision before the MRT bearing Revision No. TEN- A-362/75. The said revision came to be dismissed on 02.11.1977 against which Writ Petition No.1389/1978 was filed, which was also dismissed pursuant to which the case papers were sent to the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Darwha for deciding the application filed by the landlord for possession. Most surprisingly, the case papers in question could not reach the Sub Divisional Officer, who was to decide the said summary proceedings. It appears that taking advantage of the fact that the said application under Section 120 (c) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act did not culminate in any final order of possession, the petitioners herein notwithstanding the fact that the claim of their predecessor Nathugir for being declared as a tenant was rejected right upto this Court filed an application for being declared as tenant, the said application was numbered as Revenue Case No. 6/59(13)2006-2007. The concerned Tahsildar without considering the earlier proceedings and the order passed therein, allowed the application filed by the petitioner vide his order dated 12.05.2008, which order was set aside in appeal by the Appellate Court and against the order of 22.06.wp1577.2011.odt 4/5 Appellate Court, the petitioner filed revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, being Tenancy Revision No.TEN/B-16/2010. The landlord filed an application again under Section 120 (c) of the Act, which came to be allowed by the SDO by order dated 22.03.2010 and then a Second Revision was filed. As indicated above, both the applications were dismissed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by the impugned order dated 11.02.2011. In so far as the issue of tenancy is concerned, the Tribunal has held that in the earlier proceedings the predecessor of the petitioner was held not to be a tenant, it was not open for the petitioner to file an application once again for being declared as a tenant. In so far as the proceedings under Section 120 (c) of the Act are concerned, the Tribunal was of the view that once the predecessor of the petitioners was not declared to be a tenant the sequitur would be that the petitioners would not be entitled to be in possession of the land in question. The Tribunal, therefore, deemed it fit to dismiss the revision application. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order passed by the Revenue Tribunal, in my view, the reasons mentioned by the Tribunal for dismissing the revision application cannot be 22.06.wp1577.2011.odt 5/5 faulted with, especially in the light of the earlier round of litigation in respect of the declaration of tenancy claimed by Shri Natthugir Giri, who was the predecessor of the petitioners and in which the said Natthugir had failed and which was confirmed upto this Court. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice of the proceedings under Section 120 (c) of the Act were given by the Tahsildar. Sub Divisional Officer record discloses that no such contention was raised before the authorities below and therefore, the said cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage. Hence, no interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE NSN