ORDER : K.T. Thomas, J. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is a tenant of agricultural land. 3. Respondent was his landlord. An application was filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 43-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for resumption of certain area of land on the ground that he bonafide need the said land for cultivation. The authority which was to deal with the said application under the said Act was the Court of Tenancy Awal Karkun. 4. The said authority considered the application on merits and rendered the fact finding that the claim of the respondent is not bona fide. Respondent filed an appeal against the said order before the Sub-Divisional Officer who was the appellate authority constituted under the Act. That appellate authority had concurred with the fact finding rendered by the first authority and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter respondent preferred a revision provided in the statute before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which is a judicial authority. 5. The said Tribunal had examined record in detail and came to the conclusion that there was no legality or illegality in the proceedings or finding entered by the fact finding authorities. Accordingly the revision was dismissed. Undeterred by all the successive defeats the respondent landlord made a last attempt by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court. There he succeeded as the High Court remanded the matter right down to the gross root level for reconsideration of the claim afresh. 6. The findings on facts entered by the first authority concurred by the appellate authority when remained undisturbed even at the level of the statutory revisional authority were such that the High Court should never have reopened them while exercising its extraordinary revisional powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. We may point out that the High Court had not discovered any legal defect of a vital nature which would have affected the fact findings entered by the first two authorities. It was only a question of appreciation of fact which the High Court thought fit for reopening. The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in the aforesaid fashion cannot be approved. In fact it was impermissible for the High Court to do so in the fact situation of this case. 7. We, therefore, set a side the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly allowed.