18 WP 1212-06 @.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1212 OF 2006 Jau Padu Kale and Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Kasha Hasha Kale and Ors. ...Respondents **** Mr. Yash Dewal i/b Mr. Kailash Dewal for the Petitioners. Ms. Anita Bhaktwani for Respondents. **** CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2. Invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the Judgment and order dated 22.09.1999 passed by the President, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, Camp at Aurangabad (‘the Tribunal’ for short) in Tenancy Revision No. 67 of 1997. By the impugned order, the Revision Application filed by Petitioners is dismissed. 3. The Petitioners filed proceedings under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (as it then was). The Tahsildar/Agricultural Lands Tribunal (‘ALT’ for short), Wada, who heard the said application, rejected the claim of tenancy, by order dated 28.01.1993, holding that the subject matter land is already sold in favour of the Respondents under 32-G proceedings. 4. The Petitioners filed Tenancy Appeal No. 24 of 1993 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jawhar Division, Jawhar (‘the said SDO’ for Sneha Chavan 1 SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2026.09.07 19:56:46 +0530 18 WP 1212-06 @.doc short). The said SDO, by its order dated 06.05.1995, dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Tahsildar. 5. The Petitioners then filed the Tenancy Revision No. 67 of 1997 in the said Tribunal, which dismissed it under impugned order. 6. Thus, challenging concurrent findings on the inquiry under section 70(b) of the said Act, the Petitioners are before this Court. 7. On 07.08.2006, the petition was admitted by granting Rule and issue of delay was left open. Record shows that no interim relief was granted in favour of the Petitioners. 8. Learned Counsel Mr. Dewal appearing for the Petitioners submitted that if the judgment of the Tahsildar is minutely observed, it can be seen from suggestions given to witnesses of the parties, that the case of Petitioners belonging to same family was clearly borne out and therefore it was necessary for the Tahsildar to consider the said contention by holding the Petitioners entitled to tenancy. He submitted that the Petitioners being part of the family of Respondents were entitled to an order holding them as tenants. He also submitted that the oral evidence of witnesses Mr. Bhoir and Mr. Kadav have not been properly appreciated, who have stated that they have seen the Applicants tilling the subject land. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents supported the impugned order, contending inter alia that the Petitioners filed 70(b) proceedings after long 18 years of 32-G proceedings culminating into issuance of 32-M certificate in favour of the Sneha Chavan 2 18 WP 1212-06 @.doc Respondents. She submitted that the notice was duly served upon the Petitioners/their predecessors during 32-G proceedings and their belated attempt has been rightly rejected. She also submitted that Petitioners have not been able to establish their right as family members, even in the Civil Court. 10. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this is not a fit case to interfere for following reasons. 11. Petitioners claim to be family members of the Respondents. While considering the application under Section 70(b) of the said Act, the Tahsildar has held that when the proceedings under 32-G of the said Act were undertaken, notices were issued to the Petitioners, however, no objection was raised by them at the relevant time. It is not disputed that 32-G proceedings were over and 32-M certificate was also issued sometime in 1979 in favour of the Respondents and long time thereafter in 1989, 70(b) proceedings have been initiated. 12. The Tahsildar, on appreciation of evidence, held that there appears to be dispute about partition between the parties which cannot be decided by the Authorities under the said Act and therefore, parties may get their rights adjudicated in Civil Court. It is further held that the Petitioners have not got their names mutated in time and have not objected during 32-G proceedings and have not filed appeal in time. 13. It has come on record during the hearing before the concerned SDO, that Civil Suit No. 182 of 1989 was filed between the parties, which was decided on 24.03.1995 and no adjudication in favour of the Petitioners has been pointed out. Sneha Chavan 3 18 WP 1212-06 @.doc 14. Perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal shows that it has clearly held that there is no evidence to show that the Petitioners are in possession of the subject matter land. It is also observed that the Petitioners have not challenged the order passed under Section 32-G proceedings during the process of fixing purchase price and it has become final and Respondents have become owners. The Tribunal has also held that Petitioners have not proved the alleged relationship by adducing oral or documentary evidence. 15. It has further come on record that the Petitioners have not challenged the order passed by ALT declaring Respondent Nos. 1 to 12 as owners under Section 32-G of the said Act and as such the Applicants do not have any locus standi to file the present application. 16. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the limited writ jurisdiction of this Court, it is not possible to interfere with concurrent findings of facts. From the perusal of all the orders passed by lower authorities, it is seen that most probable view is taken based on material available on record. Hence, there is no reason to interfere. 17. Writ Petition in accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. 18. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed QR verifiable copy of this order. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) Sneha Chavan 4