JUDGMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:---As these petitions give rise to common questions of law on almost identical facts, they can conveniently be disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners, claiming to be lessees under the watandars, challenge the orders passed by the authority under the provisions of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the "Act"). By virtue of the provisions of the Act, the hereditary system of watans was sought to be abolished and the watandars who were enjoying the land under the grant given by the Government in old time were given regrant of the land on abolition of the system, without insisting on rendering any service in consideration of that grant. Therefore, as is seen from the Preamble to the Act, with an avowed object of abolition of hereditary service system, the Act has been enacted. Before going to the controversial aspect of the case, it is necessary to have a general survey of the relevant provisions of the Act. 3. Therefore, as is seen from the Preamble to the Act, with an avowed object of abolition of hereditary service system, the Act has been enacted. Before going to the controversial aspect of the case, it is necessary to have a general survey of the relevant provisions of the Act. 3. The Preamble to the Act states that it has been enacted "to abolish the hereditary village officers of lower degree than that of a revenue or police patel or village accountant and the watans appertaining thereto ..................." The relevant sub-sections of section 2 defining various phrases used in the Act are as follows :- "(i) "appointed date" in relation to any local area means the date on which the remaining provisions of this Act come into force in such local area under sub-section (4) of section 1; (ii) "authorised holder" means a person in whom vests the ownership of a watan land which has been validly alienated permanently by the watandar whether by sale or gift or otherwise, under the existing watan law; (iv) "Collector" includes an Officer appointed by the State Government to perform the functions and exercise the powers of the Collector under this Act; (v) "Existing watan law" includes an enactment, ordinance, rule, bye-law, regulation, order, notification, Vat-Hukum or any other instrument having the force of law, relating to inferior village watans which may be in force immediately before the appointed date in the local area in which the remaining provisions of this Act come into force under sub-section (4) of section 1; (vi) "Inferior village hereditary office" means every village office of lower degree than that of a revenue or police patel or village accountant held hereditarily under the existing watan law for the performance of duties connected with the administration or collection of the public revenue of a village or with the village police or with the settlement of boundaries or other matters of civil administration of a village and includes such office even where the services originally appertaining to it have ceased to be demanded; (vii) "Inferior village watan" means the inferior village hereditary office together with the tenure of watan property, if any, and the rights, privileges and liabilities attached thereto; (x) "unauthorised holder" means a person in possession of a watan land without any right or under a lease, mortgage, sale, gift or any other kind of alienation thereof which is null and void under the existing watan law; (xi) "watandar" means a person having a hereditary interest in an inferior village watan under the existing watan law." 4. By virtue of the operation of section 4 of the Act, with effect on and from the appointed date, all inferior village watans have been abolished and all incidents (including the right to hold office and watan property, the right to levy customary fees or perquisites in money or in kind, and the liability to render service) appertaining to the said watans shall be extinguished. Sub-section (3) of section 4 reads as follows :- "Subject to the provisions of sections 5, 6 and 9 all watan land shall be and is hereby resumed and shall be subject to the payment of land revenue under the provisions of the Code and the rules made thereunder as if it were an unalienated land :" Section 5 of the Act deals with regrant of watan land to holders of watan. Section 6 deals with regrant of watan land to authorised holders. Sections 8 and 9 read as follows :- "8. Application of tenancy law.---If any watan land has been lawfully leased and such lease is subsisting on the appointed date, the provisions of the tenancy law shall apply to the said lease and the rights and liabilities of the holder of such land, and his tenant or tenants shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be governed by the provisions of the said law. Explanation.---For the purposes of this section the expression "land" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the tenancy law. 9. Eviction of unauthorised holder and regrant of watan land to him in certain circumstances and disposal of land not regranted.---(1) Where any watan land resumed under section 4 is in the possession of an unauthorised holder, such unauthorised holder shall be summarily evicted therefrom by the Collector in accordance with the provisions of the Code : Provided that where in the case of any unauthorised holder, the State Government is of opinion that in view of the investment made by such holder in the development of the land or in the non-agricultural use of the land or otherwise, the eviction of such holder from the land will involve undue hardship to him, it may direct the Collector to regrant the land to such holder on payment of such amount and subject to such terms and conditions as the State Government may determine and the Collector shall regrant the land to such holder accordingly. (2) Watan land which is not regranted under sub-section (1) shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the rules made thereunder applicable to the disposal of unoccupied unalienated land." 5. As indicated above, when the proceedings under the Act is initiated, in order to order regrant of land to watandars, the petitioners in these writ petitions claiming to be in possession of the land as tenants have raised their objections and they have set up a plea that they are not liable to be evicted in the event of issuing grants in favour of watandars by virtue of section 8 of the Act. They have also contended that the regrant was sought to be issued in favour of the watandars behind their back without considering their claim of tenancy. The authorities below concurrently found that they are unauthorised holders and no protection should be available for them. It was also held by the authorities that they are not tenants to have protection under the Act as envisaged under section 8 of the Act, and their claims have been rejected by the impugned order. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court by way of these writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the authorities against them. 6. I have heard Mr. Apte, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Mr. Gavnekar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. On going through the record and after hearing the parties, I find no merit in the contention of the petitioners. The various contentions raised in the writ petitions are mainly with regard to the facts of the case which have been dealt with by the trial Court. Those findings of facts of course cannot be interfered by this Court on reappreciation of evidence. However, the main contention of Mr. Apte, Counsel for the petitioners, that the petitioners are entitled to protection under section 8 has required serious consideration. Following the language of section 8, it is clear that the lease that has been referred to in the section must be a lawful lease. Lawful lease has to be found with reference to sub-sections (ii) and (x) of section 2 of the Act as extracted above. Following the language of section 8, it is clear that the lease that has been referred to in the section must be a lawful lease. Lawful lease has to be found with reference to sub-sections (ii) and (x) of section 2 of the Act as extracted above. "Authorised holder" has been defined by sub-section (ii) of section 2 to mean a person in whom vests the ownership of a watan land which has been validly alienated permanently by the watander whether by sale or gift or otherwise, under the existing watan law. The existing watan law must be construed as the rules governing the grant of watan land before the enactment. Therefore, in order to come under the ambit of "authorised holder", one should establish that he was an alienee under the watan holder permissible under the existing law. If the existing law does not permit to have such alienation, it cannot be said that the holder is an authorised holder. Therefore, in order to establish that a person is an authorised holder, the burden is heavily on him to establish that the transfer or sale or mortgage in his favour is authorised by the grant or under the existing law. 7. This is further clear from the definition of "unauthorised holder". "Unauthorised holder", as per the aforesaid sub-section, (x), means a person in possession of a watan land without any right or under a lease, mortgage, sale, gift or any other kind of alienation thereof which is null and void under the existing watan law. In other words, if under the grant or the existing law (the law existed at the time of this enactment), such gift or sale or mortgage is not allowed and even if the holder is occupying the land or possessing the land under such unauthorised gift or mortgage or sale from the watandar, he will be treated as an unauthorised holder. On examination of the records of this case, I find that no attempt was made by the petitioners to establish that they are the authorised holder. 8. On examination of the records of this case, I find that no attempt was made by the petitioners to establish that they are the authorised holder. 8. Then, coming to section 8 on which the learned advocate has laid much emphasis in support of his case, it has clearly laid down that if any watan land has been lawfully leased and such lease is subsisting on the appointed date, such tenancy shall be protected and the law of tenancy will apply in his case. This section also has to be read along with the definitions of "authorised holder" and "unauthorised holder". The word "lawfully" appearing in section 8 clearly manifests the intention of the Legislature that such tenant holds the land under a valid lease permitted under the law or under the existing law. Mr. Apte tried to argue that the tenancy of the petitioners was never in dispute and for the last several years, they were in possession of the land. He contended that it is for the respondents, therefore, to prove that the lease in their favour was not lawful. I am afraid in the nature of the contention, such a plea could be made. It is a well-established principle that it is on a person who asserts his right to establish before the Court his rights. The contentions of the Counsel for the petitioners therefore cannot be accepted. There is no record before me that the petitioners have made an attempt to establish that the lease in their favour was lawful. In the absence of such very material evidence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities below. This being the legal position, no ground is made out to interfere with the case and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and I do so. 9. At this stage, a fervent appeal was made by Mr. Apte, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that at least the petitioners may be permitted under the proviso to section 9 of the Act, to make a representation before the Government. Section 9 provides that even an unauthorised holder, if he satisfies certain conditions, taking into account the hardship of the situations, the Government can regrant the land to such holder on payment of such amount and subject to such terms and conditions. The petitioners have so far not invoked that provision. Section 9 provides that even an unauthorised holder, if he satisfies certain conditions, taking into account the hardship of the situations, the Government can regrant the land to such holder on payment of such amount and subject to such terms and conditions. The petitioners have so far not invoked that provision. They were fighting before several authorities to mitigate their grievance and it has come on record that the petitioners are in possession for several years which requires some consideration on the part of the Government if they make an application under section 9 of the Act, before the State Government to grant some relief in their favour. I hope and trust that if such an application is made to the Government within two weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment, the Government may consider the same after hearing all the parties concerned, viz., the petitioners and the respondents herein, and pass appropriate order within three months thereafter. Till then the stay ordered by this Court will continue. With the above observations, the writ petitions are dismissed. The rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.