k 1/3 12 wp 4482.19 as.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4482 OF 2019 Govind Budya Patil deceased through legal heirs ....Petitioners V/S Balaram Rama Gondhali & Ors. ....Respondents _________ Ms. Divya A. Pawar-Patil for the Petitioners. Mr.Sunil G. Karandikar for Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 4(i). Ms. Snehal S. Jadhav, AGP for Respondent Nos.6 and 7/State. __________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 14 NOVEMBER 2025. P.C.: 1. By this Petition Petitioners challenge order dated 21 February 2018 passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) rejecting their Revision Petition and confirming the order dated 31 December 2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Thane (SDO). By order dated 31 December 2012 SDO had rejected Tenancy Appeal No.16 of 2012 filed by Petitioners essentially on the ground of delay. In that Appeal Petitioners had sought to question correctness of the order dated 17 October 1958 passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT). Since the Appeal was preferred after delay of 54 long years, the same was rejected by SDO on the ground of delay. 2. I have heard Ms. Divya Pawar-Patil, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioners and Mr. Karandikar, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents. katkam Page No. 1 of 3 k 2/3 12 wp 4482.19 as.doc 3. The sheet-anchor of Ms. Pawar is the entry made in the name of predecessor of the Petitioners Late Kukya @ Bama Goma Patil on 4 February 1954 vide Mutation Entry No.40. Though the said Mutation Entry No.40 was certified it appears that effect thereto was not given in the revenue records and name of Kukya @ Bama Goma Patil was never entered in the revenue records. As on the Tiller's day the predecessor of contesting Respondents Rama Undrya Gondhali was found to be cultivating the land in question. The ALT accordingly conducted an enquiry in proceedings initiated by Rama Undrya Gondhali under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act). In that enquiry the landlord Govind Vishram Sawant was present. He certified that Rama Undrya Gondhali was cultivating the land as on the Tiller's day. The entries in the cultivation column would indicate that cultivation by predecessor of the Petitioners Kukya @ Bama Goma Patil got discontinued after 1954-55 and Rama Undrya Gondhali started cultivating the land since the year 1955-56. After conduct of enquiry ALT passed order dated 17 October 1958 fixing purchase price in respect of land in question. After payment of purchase price, certificate under provisions of Section 32M of the Tenancy Act was issued in the name of Rama Undrya Gondhali. Thereafter, name of Rama Undrya Gondhali came to be mutated in the record of rights in respect of the land in question. 4. Petitioners never raised any challenge to the order dated 17 October 1958 passed by the ALT or to the factum of name of Rama Undrya Gondhali being mutated to the revenue record consequent to purchase of the land. For the first time on 18 November 2011 Petitioners woke out of their deep slumber possibly on account of an access given to katkam Page No. 2 of 3 k 3/3 12 wp 4482.19 as.doc Mutation Entry No.40 certified on 4 February 1954. After delay of 54 long years they were advised to prefer Appeal before SDO challenging order dated 17 October 1958. Considering the above position, the SDO has rightly dismissed the Appeal on the ground of delay. Even otherwise, the Petitioners do not have any semblance of case in respect of their alleged tenancy rights. The cultivation column clearly indicates discontinuation of cultivation of land by Kukya @ Bama Goma Patil after 1954-55. The cultivation column in the revenue records clearly indicate that Rama Undrya Gondhali took over cultivation of the land from the year 1955-56. Therefore, Mutation Entry No.40 dated 4 February 1954 otherwise does not come to the assistance of the Petitioners. 5. Considering the overall conspectus of the case, in my view, belated challenge sought to be mounted by the Petitioners to the order passed by the ALT on 17 October 1958 has rightly been rejected by the SDO. The rejection has correctly been upheld by the MRT. There is no warrant for interference in the impugned order. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) katkam Page No. 3 of 3 SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date: 2025.11.15 18:42:19 +0530