JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 4th July, 1991 passed in Revision Application No.MRT/P/X1-9/90(TNC-B-324/90) by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune ("M.R.T" for short) whereby the order dated 25th June, 1990 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Junnar Sub Division, Khed, Pune in Appeal No.15/1986 was set aside and the order passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Ambegaon in Tenancy Case No.463/1985 dated 27th November, 1986 came to be restored. The Factual Matrix : 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the land in dispute bearing Gat No.962 of village Shingave, taluka- Ambegaon, district- Pune was, originally, held on tenancy rights by one Ganpat Gorade, who had purchased the same under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("Act" for short). After the death of said Ganpat, name of his son Ramchandra Ganpat Gorade came to be recorded as Manager of the joint Hindu family. The said Ramchandra sold the said land to one Baban Tukaram Gorade somewhere in the year 1975 for a consideration of Rs.6,000/- without prior permission as required under section 43 of the Act. Consequently, default proceedings under section 84-C of the Act were initiated by the Agricultural Land Tribunal, Ambegaon ("A.L.T." for short) and the said land was forfeited to the Government. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the purchaser Shri Baban Tukaram Gorade filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Khed. The said appeal was allowed and remanded for hearing afresh. 5. On remand, again fresh order of forfeiture of subject land to the Government was passed. Since no appeal and/or revision was filed against this order, the order of forfeiture of the land became final and conclusive. The State Government was directed to dispose of the same as per the provisions of law. 6. Accordingly, applications were invited from the persons desiring to get the land allotted. No application except that of respondent No.4 was received within the time frame fixed. The Tahasildar, Ambegaon, vide declaration dated 27th November, 1986, allotted the said land to the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 deposited the requisite amount in the Government Treasury and obtained the Kabulayat. 7. Accordingly, applications were invited from the persons desiring to get the land allotted. No application except that of respondent No.4 was received within the time frame fixed. The Tahasildar, Ambegaon, vide declaration dated 27th November, 1986, allotted the said land to the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 deposited the requisite amount in the Government Treasury and obtained the Kabulayat. 7. Being aggrieved by the above order, petitioner filed Tenancy Appeal No.15/1987 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Khed (Pune) to challenge the order of allotment of land made in favour of respondent No.4. The Sub Divisional Officer vide his order dated 25th June, 1990 allowed appeal and remanded it to the Tahasildar, Ambegaon for hearing afresh. 8. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Sub Divisional Officer, respondent No.4 filed revision being Revision Application No.9/1990 before M.R.T. 9. The M.R.T., after considering entire oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the petitioner Dattatraya did not have any locus standi to file appeal as the subject land had been sold by the respondent No.2, Manager of the joint Hindu family of the petitioner, to the third party without prior permission of the State Government, which, ultimately, resulted in its forfeiture to the State Government and that the said order of forfeiture of land for want of challenge from any quarter became final and conclusive, and on the top of it, the said land was allotted to respondent No.4 following due process of law. It was also held that before allotment, applications were invited by beat of drum for disposal of the subject land. The M.R.T., thus, held on facts that due procedure for allotment of land was followed and that the allotment of land was legal and valid. 10. It was also reiterated by M.R.T. in its order that since the tenant had violated the provisions of the Act by disposing of the subject land without obtaining prior permission as required under the Act, his rights as tenant were extinguished in accordance with law as such he had no right to claim tenancy in the subject land. It was also held that the procedure for forfeiture and allotment of land was correctly followed. The doubts expressed by the Sub Divisional Officer in his order were held to be unwarranted. It was also held that the procedure for forfeiture and allotment of land was correctly followed. The doubts expressed by the Sub Divisional Officer in his order were held to be unwarranted. Accordingly, as stated earlier, vide order dated 4th July, 1991, the M.R.T. allowed revision application; set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer; and confirmed the order of the Tahasildar allotting subject land to respondent No.4. 11. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Submissions : 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is contrary to law. He submits that the forfeiture under section 84C of the Act does not ipsofacto deprive entitlement of the petitioner under section 32(P) of the Act. He submits that the public notice by beat of drum was found inadequate and unreliable by the appellate authority. He submits that the M.R.T. has erred in holding that the due procedure was followed and that the respondent No.4 was eligible and competent to purchase the subject land. He, therefore, prayed that the petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. 13. Mrs.Mudbidri, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in reply submits that the learned Tahasildar and the M.R.T. has carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and has held that the subject land was correctly allotted to the respondent No.4. That the procedure was followed. It was rightly held that the petitioner having sold the said land to third party without obtaining permission under the Act was forfeited to the Government as such the petitioner did not have locus to challenge the order of disposal of the land in favour of respondent No.4. She submits that the impugned order is passed after due application of mind and after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record as such this petition deserves no interference in writ jurisdiction and prayed for dismissal of the petition. Consideration : 14. Having heard rival parties, it is clear from the record that the Tahasildar and the M.R.T., both have carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and rightly held that due procedure was followed and the land was allotted to respondent No.4 in accordance with law. Consideration : 14. Having heard rival parties, it is clear from the record that the Tahasildar and the M.R.T., both have carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and rightly held that due procedure was followed and the land was allotted to respondent No.4 in accordance with law. The land, originally owned by the petitioner’s father, having been forfeited to the Government under section 84-C of the Tenancy Act, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to challenge the said order of forfeiture. Since no challenge was set up to the said order, the subject order of forfeiture became final and conclusive and the title of the subject land, free of tenancy rights vested with the State Government. In this view of the matter, petitioner can hardly be said to have any locus to challenge the said order. He did not apply for allotment. On this count also he has no locus to object or challenge allotment of the subject land in favour of the respondent No.4 15. So far as merits of allotment of land is concerned, distribution and allotment of land appears to have been correctly and rightly done. No fault can be found with the view taken by the M.R.T. This Court not being a court of appeal cannot reappreciate the evidence once again and substitute the findings by its own findings. 16. In Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta Tarta, (1975) 1 SCC 858 the Apex Court held that the power of superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 being extraordinary is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. The Supreme Court said that the High Court could not while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate Court or Tribunal and that its function was limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functioned within the limits of its authority and that it could not correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence or reappreciating it. The Court further said that the jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be exercised, "as the cloak of an appeal in disguise. It does not lie in order to bring up an order or decision for rehearing of the issues raised in the proceeding." 17. In Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. The Court further said that the jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be exercised, "as the cloak of an appeal in disguise. It does not lie in order to bring up an order or decision for rehearing of the issues raised in the proceeding." 17. In Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. of Hills Appeals Division and Appeals, A.I.R. 1958 S C 398 the Supreme Court observed as under: "It is thus, clear that the powers of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution with orders of judicial or quasi judicial nature, are not greater than the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under Article 226, the power of interference may extend to quashing an impugned order on the ground of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. But under Article 227 of the Constitution, the power of interference is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority." (Emphasis supplied) 18. On the above factual scenario as well as legal backdrop, no case is made out to entertain this petition. It is, thus, liable to be dismissed. 19. In the result, petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs.