vss : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1972 OF 1992 Shri Tukaram Rambhau Padwal ... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.V.B. Tapkir for Petitioner Mr.S.N. Patil, AGP, for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 9TH JUNE, 2009 ORAL JUDGEMENT: 1. The Petitioner has filed the present petition aggrieved by the orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in MRT – P VIII 3/1990 on 20.1.1992 and the Sub Divisional Officer in Tenancy Appeal No.20/1989 besides challenging the order passsed by the Tenancy Awwal Karkun in Case No.172 of 1978. Muktabai was the owner of the land being Gat No.207 admeasuring 4 hectares and 61 ares. She sold this land to the petitioner and respondent No.5 in 1964 for an amount of Rs. 4,000/-. The name of the Petitioner and Respondent No.5 were accordingly entered into the record of rights vide mutation entry No.2283. In 1980 i.e. after a period of 16 years from the sale of the land to the Petitioner a suo moto enquiry was instituted by the State Government u/s 84 C of the Bombay Tenancy and vss : 2 : Agricultural Land Act 1948. The tenancy Awwal Karkun in Case No.172 of 1978 held that the sale in favour of the Petitioner and Respondent No.5 by Muktabai was not legal since there was a tenant on the land. Accordingly, the Tenancy Awwal Karkun, Khed held that the land was forfeited to the government. 2. Thereafter, this land was allotted by the Tehsildar to Respondent No.4 on 27.9.1989. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of 16.9.1980 as well as the order dated 27.9.1989 challenged the two orders by filing a tenancy appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Junnar. That appeal was decided on 30.3.1990 by the SDO. The SDO came to the conclusion that the order dated 16.9.1980 passed u/s 84 C by which the land was forfeited to the Government had been challenged after an inordinate delay of 8 years and, therefore, the appeal could not be entertained. He further observed that unless the order of the Tenancy Awwal Karkun in 1980 was set aside, there was no need to consider the validity of the allotment made in favour of Respondent No.4. The SDO dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the order passed u/s 84C as well as by the Tehsildar allotting the land to respondent No.4. 3. Aggrieved by the decision of the SDO, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. That revision application has been dismissed and the orders passed by the SDO as well as the Tenancy Awwal Karkun in Tenancy Case No.172 of 1978 have been confirmed. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the orders impugned should be set aside as no case was made out in the proceedings u/s 84C for vss : 3 : forfeiture of the land which was purchased by the Petitioner from the Muktabai. He submits that there was no tenant on the land and therefore, the purchase made by the petitioner was valid. He further points out that Jagannath Dagdu Kumbhar had lost possession of the land in 1970 - 71 and there was no complaint made by him during his lifetime or by his son thereafter. According to the learned Counsel, the name of Muktabai i.e. the land owner was shown in the extract of the record of rights, indicating that she was personally cultivating the land in 1957-58. Therefore, on the tiller's day there was no tenant of the land according to the learned advocate. He submits therefore that in this view of the matter, the impugned orders should be set aside. 5. On a perusal of the impugned orders with the assistance of the learned advocate for the Petitioner, I find that there is no need to interfere with the same. The order passed by the Tenancy Awwal Karkun in an enquiry u/s 84C was passed on 16.9.1980. The petitioner did not bother to challenge that order for over a period of eight years. Thus, in my view, the SDO and the revenue Tribunal have correctly held that the challenge to that order is barred by limitation. An appeal under the Bombay Tenancy Act is to be filed within 60 days as provided u/s 74 of the Act. The appeal was preferred well over that period of limitation. There was no application preferred for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appeal has therefore been rightly rejected by the SDO. The Revenue Tribunal cannot be faulted for having confirmed that order. 6. Petition is rejected. Rule discharged. No costs.