901.as.wp.3302.2014 @.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3302 OF 2014 Ramabai Ramaji Mali (decd) thr. Lrs. Gajanan Ramji Mali since deceased thr. Lrs. Nandkumar Gajajan Mali and ors. … Petitioners Versus Santosh Kashinath Pilena and ors. … Respondents *** Mr. Satyajeet Joshi a/w Mr. Chinmay Joshi for the Petitioners. Ms. Swati Sagvekar a/w Mr. Shiv Mishra for Respondent Nos.1 to 12. Mr. Nachiket H. Tarade for Respondent Nos.13 &18 to 24. Mr. Santosh Kashinath Pilena - Respondent No.1 present. Mr. Sanjay Kashinath Pilena - Respondent No.2 present. Mr. Subhadra Kashinath Pilena - Respondent No.3 present. Ms. Aruna Suresh Hadal - Respondent No.4 present. Mr. Vishal Jaywant Pilena - Respondent No.5(ii) present. Mr. Gopal Madhar Pilena - Respondent No.9(b) present. *** CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 10 SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present Petition is filed challenging the order of the President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai dated 20.08.2013 in Tenancy Revision No. 5/B/2010 by which the order passed by the Tahsildar & ALT Palghar and subsequent order of Sub Divisional Officer, Dahanu were set aside. 2. Respondent Nos. 5 to 12 filed Tenancy Case No.15/SR/1/2006 Vina Khadpe 1 VINA ARVIND KHADPE Digitally signed by VINA ARVIND KHADPE Date: 2026.09.10 17:48:10 +0530 901.as.wp.3302.2014 @.doc under Section 15 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, ‘the said Act’) which was allowed on 31.05.2006, thereby directing that their names recorded as agricultural tenants be deleted from the record of the subject matter property. The said order was challenged by the present Respondent Nos.1 to 4 before the concerned SDO in Tenancy Appeal No.1 of 2007 which was dismissed under Order dated 05.12.2008. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 then filed Tenancy Revision No. 5/B/2010 in the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, in which the impugned order is passed setting aside the earlier orders. 4. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 12 tendered an Affidavit-in-Reply filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 12 accepting that they were never tenants of the land in question and have no objection if their names are deleted from the concerned record and they are consenting for quashing and setting aside the impugned order thereby giving up their claim of alleged tenancy. They have undertaken that they would not challenge or question any transaction in respect of the land in question. It is jointly submitted that the transaction referred in paragraph 27 of the Affidavit-in-Reply refers to the transaction with Respondent Nos.18 to 24. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner therefore requested that the impugned order be set aside in view of the Affidavit-in-Reply. 6. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 (at whose instance, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order setting aside earlier orders) are present in Court who are duly identified by their Advocate. On a query by the Vina Khadpe 2 901.as.wp.3302.2014 @.doc Court, Respondent Nos.1 to 4 stated that they have no objection if the order of the Tribunal is set aside as they were not concerned with the subject matter property. 7. A copy of Affidavit-in-Reply affirmed on 07.09.2026 and a copy of the Power of Attorney executed by the Petitioners are taken on record and marked as “X” collectively for identification. 8. In view of the Affidavit-in-Reply and the statements made by Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the Court, the impugned order dated 20.08.2013 in Tenancy Revision No.5/B/2010 is quashed and set aside thereby restoring the earlier orders dated 05.12.2008 and 31.05.2006. 9. This Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Interim relief/stay granted on 13.02.2018 is vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) Vina Khadpe 3