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 SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.2716 of 1991 WRIT PETITION NO.2716 of 1991 WRIT PETITION NO.2716 of 1991 Shri Arvind Sopanrao Tathwade ..Petitioner Versus Shri Kanhu Laxman Masolkar ..Respondents Mr.P.B.Shah for the Petitioner. Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP for Respondent No.2. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. DATED : 10TH SEPTEMBER,2008 DATED : 10TH SEPTEMBER,2008 DATED : 10TH SEPTEMBER,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 22nd January, 1991 dismissing the Revision filed by the present petitioner against the order dated 13th October, 1986 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Junnar Division, Khed, Pune, in Tenancy Case No.14 of 1986. 3. The factual matrix reveal that the suit land was granted to the transferee under Section 32-G to P on new and impartible tenure as he was a tenant of the suit land. Though the land was granted on new and impartible tenure, the entry thereof was not taken into revenue record. 4. The complaint was filed by Shri Kulkarni against the landlord to the dispute before the Tenancy Awal Karkun, Shirur that the sale deed made by the transferor is to be -2- declared invalid as the land was granted on new and impartible tenure. 5. It is not in dispute that the transferor had sold this land without the previous sanction of the Collector. Though it was given on new and impartible tenure the sale is clearly in contravention of Section 42 of the Act. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim, (1997) 6 S.C.C.71. Amin vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim, (1997) 6 S.C.C.71. Amin vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim, (1997) 6 S.C.C.71. The reliance placed is misplaced as the exercise of revisional power is expected to be within a reasonable period, however, what would be that period would depend on the facts of each case. 7. A finding of fact was recorded by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. All the Authorities below have taken a similar view. In this view of the matter no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. (V.C. DAGA, J.) (V.C. DAGA, J.) (V.C. DAGA, J.)