JUDGMENT - R.G. DESHPANDE, J. :---This is a petition arising out of the judgment and order, dated 30-11-1984, passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, in Revision Application No. MRT.AH.I./2/83 (TEN.B.11/83), wherein the revision of the petitioners is dismissed by the Revenue Tribunal upholding the findings given by the courts below that the present respondent - Sonba Babaji Kopnar has become the owner of the suit land bearing Survey No. 134 of village Rakshaswadi (Bk.) on 1-4-1957 in accordance with the provisions of section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This ownership was subject to the conditions that the purchase of the suit land was under section 43 of the Act and further that the fresh purchase certificate should be issued in the name of tenant purchaser after deposit of the full purchase price and the previous purchase certificate would stand cancelled. 2.To understand the rival contentions, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant facts of the case. The petitioners, who happened to be the legal representatives of the original landlord, are the owners of Field Survey No. 134 admeasuring 13 acres 23 gunthas, situated at village Rakshaswadi (BK.), Karjat Tahsil, District Ahmednagar. Respondent No. 1 - Sonba is a tenant of the suit land. In fact, even prior to Sonba, the father of Sonba was in possession of the land in question as a tenant thereon since the year 1932-33. 3.Proceedings under section 32-G of the Act were initiated in respect of the above land by the Additional Tahsildar, Karjat, who by his order, dated 24-2-1982 declared respondent Sonba as a owner of the said land and accordingly fixed the purchase price. The present petitioners challenged the said order of the Additional Tahsildar before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Parner, by way of an appeal bearing No. 18/82 and the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, by his judgment and order, dated 26-7-1982, dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioners and confirmed the order, passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal. It is this order, which was challenged before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, on the ground that the Revenue Authorities below did not appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. It is this order, which was challenged before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, on the ground that the Revenue Authorities below did not appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. It was also the contention before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that the respondent Sonba was in possession of the land in excess of the ceiling limit as on 1-4-1957 besides the land in dispute and, therefore, according to the petitioners, the respondent tenant could not have purchased or could not have purchased or could not have exercised the right to purchase the land in question. Before the Revenue Tribunal, it was also contended on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent tenant was in possession of Survey Nos. 127, 129 and 130 as on 1-4-1957 and, therefore, the total acreage of these lands was 56.61 acres and even after deducting certain uncultivable or Potkharab land, the cultivable land which remained with the tenant on 1-4-1957 since was more than the ceiling limit under section 5 of the Act would not have permitted the respondent Sonba to purchase the land in question. It was also the contention before the Revenue Tribunal, of the petitioners that the respondent Sonba on 1-4-1957 was in possession of Field Survey No. 125/2, that too of village Rakshaswadi (Bk.) with an area of 12.16 acres. As regards this Field Survey No. 125/2, it was the contention of the petitioners before the Revenue Tribunal that this Survey Number originally belonged to one Smt. Yashodabai, which was held as a tenant by Sonba, and which was surrendered by him in the year 1962, in favour of Yashodabai. The very same land was again purchased on 16-4-1963 by the present respondent Sonba. Since the area of Field Survey No. 134, which is a land in dispute, as pointed out above, admeasures 13.23 acres and, therefore, as per the calculations of the petitioners on the relevant date i.e. on 1-4-1957 Sonba had about 80.16 acres of land which was much more than the limits prescribed and, therefore, it was the case of petitioners that he could not have been held to be entitled to purchase Survey No. 134. According to the petitioners, no declaration could be granted under section 32-G of the Act in favour of respondent Sonba. According to the petitioners, no declaration could be granted under section 32-G of the Act in favour of respondent Sonba. 4.The abovesaid contentions, which were raised before the Revenue Tribunal were duly answered on behalf of the respondent Sonba specifically pointing out that neither did he hold land more than the ceiling limit nor could it be said that he was not entitled to declaration as sought for. The learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, by his judgment and order, dated 30-11-1984 negatived the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and reached to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 Sonba was entitled to purchase the field in question specifically pointing out that after deducting the necessary Potkharab area from the holding of the tenant, he was not holding land more than the ceiling limits whereby he could have been prohibited to purchase the field in question. The learned Member of the Revenue Tribunal specifically pointed out that respondent Sonba was eligible and legally entitled to purchase the suit land. Thus the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities below are maintained by the Revenue Tribunal.. It is against this judgment of the Revenue Tribunal, the present writ petition is filed. 5.Shri S.D. Kulkarni with Shri Bhise, Counsel for the petitioners, challenged the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on the grounds that the valuation as made was without application of mind and particularly because the same is fixed on the basis of previous price, which was fixed in earlier proceedings, to which the petitioner was not a party and, therefore, according to Shri Kulkarni, the same was not binding on the petitioners. It is also argued on behalf of the petitioners that while calculating the price, the amount of interest is not calculated up-to-date, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. According to Shri Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the ceiling area as fixed under section 5 of the Act is 48 acres, whereas the same differs from the ceiling area as per the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. Shri Kulkarni tried to faintly suggest that there could not be two different ceiling areas, one under the Ceiling Act and another under the Tenancy Act. Shri Kulkarni tried to faintly suggest that there could not be two different ceiling areas, one under the Ceiling Act and another under the Tenancy Act. Shri Kulkarni further pointed out that vide Government Resolution, dated 30-3-1957, issued under section 7 of the Tenancy Act, the ceiling area is enhanced from 48 to 60 acres for the area in question, which was arbitrary and same could not have been done by the Government exercising the powers under section 7 of the Act. 6.Before going to the merits of the case, I would like to dispose of all these points on the very short ground that none of these grounds were raised by the petitioners at any time in any of the courts below, including that of the Revisional Court. While exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I do not find it necessary to allow the petitioner to raise these contentions for the first time in this petition. The challenge which is tried to be made to the provisions of the Ceiling Act and the Government Resolution, dated 30-3-1957, now cannot be permitted at such a late stage. It is seen from the record that field Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 63, all situated at Village Rakshaswadi (Bk.) and Field Survey No. 125/2 that too of village Rakshaswadi (Bk.) are the Field Survey Numbers which are required to be taken into consideration for the purposes of the decision in the present case. It is the case of the petitioners that Field Survey Nos. 61, 21 acres and 21 gunthas and Field Survey No. 125/2, 12 acres and 16 gunthas have been wrongly excluded from the holding of the respondent - Sonba. According to Shri Kulkarni, if these Survey Numbers would not have been excluded, then in that case, the holding of the respondent - Sonba, would have exceeded the prescribed limit under section 5 of the Act, thereby debarring the respondent tenant from purchasing Field Survey No. 134, situated at Village Rakshaswadi (Bk.) which is the subject matter of this petition. Even though all these points Shri Kulkarni tried to argue vehemently, however, he fairly conceded that Field Survey Nos. 62 and 63 of the said village have been rightly excluded from the holding of Sonba. Because of this fair concession the calculation as regards holding of the respondent-tenant has definitely become easy. Even though all these points Shri Kulkarni tried to argue vehemently, however, he fairly conceded that Field Survey Nos. 62 and 63 of the said village have been rightly excluded from the holding of Sonba. Because of this fair concession the calculation as regards holding of the respondent-tenant has definitely become easy. As regards Survey No. 61, it is seen from the record that in the agricultural year 1950-51, the entry in 7/12 extract showed the name of Sonba alone. From the 7/12 extracts which are on the record, it can be very well ascertained that Field Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 63 were not in possession of Sonba the respondent on 1-4-1957. In fact, the same appeared to have been recorded in the name of one Eknath Bhiva Tonde and, therefore, the question of calculating the acreage of these lands into the holding of Sonba did not arise. Naturally, the area of these Survey Numbers since was not liable to be considered for the purposes of finding out the holding of Sonba, there was no mistake committed by any of the Revenue Authorities below in skipping over that area while calculating the holding of Sonba. 7.Then the question arise as regards Field Survey No. 125/2, which is 12.16 acres. This Survey No. 125/2 was surrendered by the tenant to the land lady - Yashodabai on 14-11-1962. Naturally this Field Survey No. 125/2 could not have been included into the holding of the tenant Sonba as per the provisions of section 32-G of the Act. 8.As regards Field Survey Nos. 127, 129 and 130, with an area of 13.30 acres, 05.04 acres and 14.00 acres, respectively, it is to be observed that the petitioners did produce the 7/12 extract for these Survey Numbers indicating that the same were held by the respondent-tenant as a owner thereof on 1-4-1957. The total area of these fields, though is shown to be 58 acres, which is wrongly shown as 56.80 acres on page 20 of the paper book, in fact, in these 58 acres of land, the uncultivable land or Potkharab land is included, which needed to be excluded therefrom. The total area of these fields, though is shown to be 58 acres, which is wrongly shown as 56.80 acres on page 20 of the paper book, in fact, in these 58 acres of land, the uncultivable land or Potkharab land is included, which needed to be excluded therefrom. The uncultivable land, as is shown, is 25.6 acres and if the same is excluded from the holding of Sonba, the holding of the tenant comes to 32.34 acres only and the calculation made by the Authorities below in this respect is found to be just and do not call for any addition or deletion therein. In short, it does not call for interference in the same by this Court. 9.From the above observation, it is clear now that to find out the holding of the respondent-tenant as on 1-4-1957, Field Survey Nos. 127, 129 and 130, as also Field Survey Nos. 61 and 125/2 and then Field Survey No. 134, which is subject matter of the present petition are to be considered and to find out as to whether the holding of the respondent-tenant did exceed the ceiling area as prescribed under section 5 of the Tenancy Act. 10.It is clear that Field Survey Nos. 127, 129 and 130, referred to above, are held as owner by the respondent - Sonba. The area of these three Survey Numbers, after deducting the uncultivable area is 32.34 acres. It is already pointed out that as regards Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 63, they were in possession of the Eknath Bhiva Tonde as a tenant thereon since the year 1954-55 onwards and they were not in possession of the respondent-tenant on 1-4-1957. Thus the remaining area of Survey Nos. 134 and 125/2 together comes to 25.39 acres. However, the said Survey No. 125/2 was already handed over by the tenant to the landlady Yashodabai on 14-11-1962 as per the order, passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal in Case No. 82-G/19/60, dated 24-4-1962. Naturally this Survey Number could not be included into the holding of the respondent-tenant in accordance with the provisions of section 32-G of the Act. It is clear that it is the right of the tenant to have a choice of lands to be purchased if the lands held by him are from more than one landlord. Naturally this Survey Number could not be included into the holding of the respondent-tenant in accordance with the provisions of section 32-G of the Act. It is clear that it is the right of the tenant to have a choice of lands to be purchased if the lands held by him are from more than one landlord. It is also clear and as is argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 that the respondent-tenant did not choose Survey No. 125/2 for the purposes of purchase and also handed over the possession of the same to the landlady as discussed above. It is the choice given by the tenant to the respondent that he would be purchasing the Filed Survey No. 134 only. Naturally, the respondent-tenant was entitled for declaration of these 12.16 acres of Field Survey No. 125/2. Thus the land remained with the tenant if taken into consideration the Survey No. 134 with an area of 13.23 acres, in view of what is observed above, I do not find any mistake or any illegality committed by the Revenue Authorities below and it is also further clear that the calculation as given by the petitioners as regards the holding of the respondent-tenant does not appear to be correct. It is further clear that the holding of a tenant as a owner, as per the calculation is 32.34 acres and as a tenant he hold 13.23 acres i.e. the present field which is the subject matter of this petition. Calculating the area in any manner, the maximum area held by the respondent-tenant including Field Survey No. 134 comes to 46 acres and 17 gunthas, which in fact, is less than the ceiling limit of 48 acres as prescribed under section 5 of the Act. 11. Shri Dhorde, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has specifically pointed out that it was brought on the record through the attorney (Mukhtyar) of the respondent-tenant that original tenant-Babaji Kopnar i.e. the father of the present respondent No. 1, who died on 18-6-1946 had two sons, who only could be said to be his legal representatives, one of them being the present respondent No. 1 - Sonba Kopnar and the second one is Hariba Kopnar, who happened to be the real brother of the respondent No. 1. It is evident from the record that Sonba is shown as a Karta of the joint family after the death of Babaji and naturally his name was entered into the relevant revenue record. It was the contention of Shri Dhorde, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 that taking into consideration the factual situation, in fact, Sonba and Hariba had half share each in the property left by Babaji and naturally these two brotheres Sonba and Hariba had half share in that ancestral property. Shri Dhorde further pointed out, and is also rightly held by the Revenue Authorities below, that the said lands which were left behind by Babaji Kopnar were partitioned during the year 1960 and in pursuance thereof, necessary entries to that effect were taken in the revenue records by way of mutation. It is pertinent to note, and is rightly argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, that Field Survey No. 134, which is the subject matter of the present petition, was not partitioned. As regards the partition, referred to above, it was the case of the respondent-tenant all through that he got 13.30 acres of land and his brother Hariba got 19.4 acres of land in the said partition. 12.Shri Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the petitioners raised a strong objection on the point that it was not open for the Revenue Authorities below to permit a national partition as regards Field Survey No. 134 with an area of 13.23 acres. The Revenue Authorities below while calculating the holding of the respondent No. 1, observed that since the land in question was inherited by the respondent No. 1 and his brother Hariba, according to Shri Kulkarni, it was not open for calculation independently into the holding of Sonba and Hariba, respectively, and surprisingly Shri Kulkarni argued that in the holding of both these brothers the complete area of 13.23 acres should have been included. Shri Kulkarni did not dispute that the tenancy could be inherited in pursuance of section 40 of the Act. However, Shri Kulkarni vehemently argued that the said land could not have been partitioned by the sons of Babaji - the original tenant and that according to Shri Kulkarni the Revenue Authorities did commit a mistake in calculating only half of the land from Field Survey No. 134 into the holding of the respondent No. 1 - tenant. However, Shri Kulkarni vehemently argued that the said land could not have been partitioned by the sons of Babaji - the original tenant and that according to Shri Kulkarni the Revenue Authorities did commit a mistake in calculating only half of the land from Field Survey No. 134 into the holding of the respondent No. 1 - tenant. If the argument of Shri Kulkarni in this behalf is accepted, it would create quite many complications, because if in a given case there would have been more heirs than the two as in the present case, as per the argument of Shri Kulkarni in the holding of each heir, same land will have to be included to find out the holding of each heir. The learned Counsel Shri Dhorde arguing on behalf of the respondent contended that since the suit field in question is inherited and since the tenancy is inherited, the presumption would be that all those heirs who have inherited the tenancy have a equal share in the said tenancy rights and in the instant case, if calculated, since there are only two heirs i.e. Sonba and Hariba, calculation of half of the area could not be said to be a mistake committed by the Authorities below. 13.It was next argued by Shri Kulkarni on behalf of the petitioners that the certificate which is granted under section 32 of the Act could be said to be non-est, as according to him, the same was contrary to the provisions of the Ceiling Act. As observed earlier, this point was not raised by the petitioners all through this litigation upto the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. However, even otherwise, I do not find anything illegal in the same, as the attempt on the part of Shri Kulkarni was to show that the provisions of Tenancy Act and the provisions of the Ceiling Act are not in consonance with each other. Shri Kulkarni tried to show that the ceiling area as prescribed under section 5 of the Act is 48 acres, whereas in the Ceiling Act, the area shown is about 54 acres. Shri Kulkarni wanted to show that by Government Resolution, dated 30-3-1957, ceiling limit is increased to 60 acres in the local area where land in dispute is situated. Shri Kulkarni tried to show that the ceiling area as prescribed under section 5 of the Act is 48 acres, whereas in the Ceiling Act, the area shown is about 54 acres. Shri Kulkarni wanted to show that by Government Resolution, dated 30-3-1957, ceiling limit is increased to 60 acres in the local area where land in dispute is situated. Shri Kulkarni tried to say that this increase is arbitrary and that it is contrary to what has been prescribed under the Ceiling Act. I do not find any substance in this argument, nor does that point in any manner arise in the present case. In this respect, a specific question was put to Shri Kulkarni by this Court as to whether did he challenge vires of the same and Shri Kulkarni frankly said that he did not want to challenge the vires in any manner. Shri Kulkarni wanted to show the discrepancies in the provisions only. Shri Kulkarni further tried to impress on this Court that the procedure as prescribed under section 32 of the Act is not properly followed. According to Shri Kulkarni while fixing the price of the suit field, the Revenue Authorities below did not take into consideration the quality and the kind of the land in question, the area in which it is situated, the potential of the land in question for agricultural purposes and, therefore, according to Shri Kulkarni, the price fixed is absolutely arbitrary. Shri Dhorde, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has rightly pointed out that neither these points were raised before the Revenue Authorities below, nor the petitioners did adduce any evidence to that effect on the record. Shri Dhorde has taken me through the record of the case and specifically pointed out that there was no reference whatsoever to these points and, therefore, there is no evidence to that effect on the record. I do not feel that the petitioners can be permitted to raise these points at this stage for assailing the orders of the Revenue Authorities below. Shri Kulkarni tried to suggest that the matter could be remanded so as to have the petitioners fresh opportunity on all points. This request of Shri Kulkarni also deserves no consideration and even on the facts of the case such an order is not at all necessary. Shri Kulkarni tried to suggest that the matter could be remanded so as to have the petitioners fresh opportunity on all points. This request of Shri Kulkarni also deserves no consideration and even on the facts of the case such an order is not at all necessary. Shri Kulkarni further faintly tried to argue that since the present transfer of the field in question in favour of the respondent-tenant is hit by the provisions of the Ceiling Act, the same should be ignored. However, in view of my observations above, this question, in fact, does not arise, nor does the argument of Shri Kulkarni on this point deserve any consideration. 14.Shri Kulkarni in support of his contention that there could be even no notional division of the field, which is calculated by the tenants in view of the inheritance of the tenancy rights cited a ruling reported in 1989 Mah. L.J. 689, in the case of (Dwarkanath v. Narayan)1. Shri Kulkarni tried to rely on the observations made in this judgment in para 9 of page 692, which are as under : "When a tenancy is created in favour of one or more, he or they must get exclusive possession of the land. A tenancy in respect of an undivided share in any particular piece of land is a contradiction in terms. A tenancy has got to be on the land which has got to be cultivated fully. The tenancy cannot be in the air." From the observations, Shri Kulkarni wanted to suggest that in the instant case, the share of respondent No. 1 - Sonba and his brother Hariba since could not be ascertained even a notional partition in such a case, therefore, is not permissible. I do not agree with this contention of Shri Kulkarni. 15.After going through the said judgment, cited supra, it is clear that the matter was considered in the light of the question which was to the effect that as to whether there was valid agreement of lease entered into by Sumatibai in favour of the respondent No. 1 in that case and which was referred to the Tenancy Court under section 85-A of the Act. From the contents of the judgment, it is clear that the question was whether Sumatibai, who would create a lease on the field in question, wherein she had 1/3rd share, but it was not actually identified and demarcated and even was not separated by partition from the field in question. In view of the facts of that case, the Court observed that: "A tenancy has got to be on the land, which has got to be cultivated fully. The tenancy cannot be in air. If an undivided share is given for cultivation, the other co-sharer will have a right to cultivate his own land, which share of the land will always be uncertain." In the instant case, since the tenancy is inherited and the inclusion of the tenanted land is to be taken into consideration, there cannot be any difficulty in making a notional partition of the property for the purposes of cultivating the holding of each share holder in that land. The judgment cited by Shri Kulkarni, therefore, in my view is not applicable to the present case. Shri Kulkarni thereafter tried to rely on the judgment reported in A.I.R. 1964 Gujrat 183, in the case of (Thakorelal v. Gujrat Revenue Tribunal)2. This is a judgment wherein the Division Bench of Gujrat High Court was required to deal with the question as regards the death of deemed tenant under section 4 of the Act prior to 1956 amendment, wherein that Court observed that the tenancy is not heritable, pointing out the distinction between the deemed tenancy and the contractual tenancy. The question of deemed tenancy in the present matter does not arise. Factually, after the death of Babaji, the respondent No. 1 Sonba and his brother Hariba inherited the tenancy right in accordance with the provisions of section 40 of the Act and it requires no many more words to say that it is a statutory tenancy if the heirs decide to cultivate the land as tenants. I, therefore, do not find that this judgment also is of any help to Shri Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the petitioners. I, therefore, do not find that this judgment also is of any help to Shri Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 16.The learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1, Shri Dhorde, in support of his contention arguing that the Tenancy Act and the Ceiling Act are absolutely independant, the purpose of both the Acts is also different and the provisions of Ceiling Act cannot be invoked for the purposes of finding out the holding under the Tenancy Act, brought to my notice a judgment reported in A.I.R. 1972, Bombay 194, in the case of (Purnabai w/o Bapu Jawale v. The State of Maharashtra)3, which was a matter dealing with the provision of section 19 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act (27 of 1961). Shri Dhorde also relied on the judgment reported in the matter of (Nakabai v. Mahu)4, reported in 1980 Mah. L. J. 105. Shri Dhorde wanted to rely on this judgment just to show that the tenancy of a statutory tenant is heritable and that the heirs who have inherited the tenancy are entitled to partition such land. The cited judgment relates to the right of the tenant to inherit the tenancy on the land of the public trust. In that matter, it is held that the tenancy rights from the public trust are also inheritable. In the said judgment, in para 9, it is clearly observed that, "every tenancy whether contractual or statutory is essentially heritable, heritability being an incident of tenancy." The learned Counsel Shri Dhorde has rightly relied on this judgment in support of his contention and I have no hesitation whatsoever in accepting the same. Shri Dhorde was justified in contending that there could be a notional partition of share for the purposes of calculation of holding of the tenants who are more than one who have inherited tenancy. Shri Dhorde further argued that even taken into consideration that whole of the area of Field Survey No. 134 in the holding of the respondent-tenant, even then his holding does not exceed the permissible ceiling limit and, therefore, the respondent was entitled to the ownership of the field in question and he was entitled for necessary declaration in that respect. Shri Dhorde further argued that even taken into consideration that whole of the area of Field Survey No. 134 in the holding of the respondent-tenant, even then his holding does not exceed the permissible ceiling limit and, therefore, the respondent was entitled to the ownership of the field in question and he was entitled for necessary declaration in that respect. I find that there is a substance in the argument of Shri Dhorde and by taking into consideration the extended limit of ceiling of 60 acres, the question of exceeding the holding of the respondent No. 1 beyond that does not arise. I have, therefore, no hesitation to observe that the conclusions, drawn by the learned Revenue Authorities below, are absolutely correct and deserve no interference much less under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 17.In the result, the petition fails, the same is accordingly dismissed,. Rule is discharged. However, in the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.