vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5930 OF 1991 WRIT PETITION NO.5930 OF 1991 WRIT PETITION NO.5930 OF 1991 Gangubai Ganpati Mendkudale @ Birajdar since deceased through her heir Balwant ganpati Birajdar ... Petitioner V/s. Vanappa Shekappa Mang & Ors. ... Respondents a/w WRIT PETITION NO.5918 OF 1991 WRIT PETITION NO.5918 OF 1991 WRIT PETITION NO.5918 OF 1991 Gangubai Ganpati Mendkudale @ Birajdar since deceased through her heir Balwant ganpati Birajdar ... Petitioner V/s. Vanappa Shekappa Mang & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.K.B. Sonwalkar for Petitioner Mr.Sagar Joshi for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 24, 2008 NOVEMBER 24, 2008 NOVEMBER 24, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: . These petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision application Nos.MRT-SH-VIII-6 (Tnc.B.179/88) and MRT-SH-VIII-7/88 (Tnc.B.180/88). The petitioner in both the petitions claims to be the landlord of agricultural lands being Gat Nos.59/3 and 7/73. These lands originally belonged to the mother of the petitioner, Gangubai Menkudale. The lands were cultivated by one Shekappa Malappa Mang prior to 1.4.1957. Proceedings under section 32G of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, the : 2 : Act) were initiated by the Tehsildar and ALT of Mangalvedha on 30.9.1960. The original tenant according to the petitioner showed his unwillingness to purchase the suit lands which was recorded by the Tehsildar. In the circumstances, it was ordered that the sale of the suit lands under section 32G was ineffective because the tenant was unwilling to purchase the suit lands. 2. About 14 years later, on 24.7.1974, the Tehsildar passed an order u/s 32P of the Act and directed that the suit land should be restored and handed over to the petitioner. This order was set aside on 10.8.1975 in Appeal No.TAP-113 of 1975. The matter was remanded to the Tehsildar, Mangalvedha for a fresh enquiry. 3. Prior to this in 1968, Gangubai had filed a civil suit being RCS No.80 of 1968 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mangalvedha, District Solapur for possession of the suit land. The respondents contested the suit and contended that they were cultivating the suit land as tenants and were therefore deemed purchasers of the suit land. An issue was framed by the Civil Court with respect to the tenancy of the lands and the same was referred u/s 25A of the Act to the Additional Tehsildar, Mangalvedha. The issue referred was as follows: : 3 : "Whether the respondents are tenants in the suit land and whether they are entitled to purchase the suit land u/s 32G of the Act." 4. Notices were issued to the parties after registering their case before the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar by the order dated 17.8.1978 declared that the respondents were tenants and held that the respondents had proved that they were deemed purchasers of the suit land and were entitled to purchase the lands u/s 32G of the Act. It appears that the Tehsildar in Tenancy Case No.24-9 had also fixed the purchase price of the suit land in the proceedings initiated u/s 32P. The petitioner approached the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pandharpur by preferring Appeal Nos.31 and 30 of 1981, were filed challenging the orders passed by the Tehsildar. The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioner on 29.1.1988. Being aggrieved by this order of the SDO, the petitioner preferred revision applications before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune. The Tribunal by its common judgment upheld the view taken by the SDO and confirmed his judgment. Hence, the present petitions. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that when there was a finding recorded by the : 4 : Tehsildar that a tenant was not willing to purchase the suit land u/s 32G of the Act, the impugned orders could not have been passed. He submits that by an order dated 30.9.1960. The Tehsildar had declared that the purchase of the suit land u/s 32G had become ineffective. The learned advocate submits that this declaration of 30.9.1960 has not been challenged by the respondent and, therefore, the orders declaring the respondents to be tenants and for fixing the purchase price are illegal. 5. A perusal of the order of the SDO indicates that the tenant had in fact shown his unwillingness to purchase certain lands. However, these lands were not survey Nos.77/3 and 59/3 which were owned by the petitioner. Instead the declaration related to land bearing survey No.62. This declaration made in respect of survey Nos.62 and not of 77/3 and 59/3 has not been challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, the declaration is naturally limited to survey No.62 which is not owned by the petitioner. 5. In these circumstances, there is no error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal, confirming the order of the SDO. In my opinion, when three authorities below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the order declaring the purchase of the suit land being ineffective on 30.9.1960 was in respect of survey No.62, : 5 : there is no need to interfere with this finding. 6. Petitions are dismissed.