JUDGMENT : Manish Pitale, J. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties. 3. The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition is a judgment and order dated 03/06/2016 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, whereby Revision Application filed by respondents No.1 to 3 has been allowed, thereby setting aside order of the Sub Divisional Officer and restoring order of the Tahasildar. The respondents No.1 to 3 claimed relief under the provisions of Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act 1958, on the basis that their predecessor Sahadeo Wankhede was a tenant and in possession of land belonging to the petitioner as on 01/04/1963 (Tiller's day). 4. A suo motu proceeding for determination of tenancy in respect of aforesaid land situated in survey No.113 corresponding to Gat No.247, admeasuring 10.94 Acres in village Heoti, Tahasil Umred, District Nagpur, was initiated by the Tahasildar, (also the Agricultural Lands Tribunal) in Umred since the record of rights divulged that names of more than one tenants were recorded in respect of the said land concerning the year 1963-64. 5. The Tahasildar by order dated 29/11/1969 found that the Predecessor of respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. Sahadeo Wankhede was a tenant of the said land and that he was in possession of the same as on 01/04/1963. As a consequence, he was found entitled to purchase the said land from the petitioner (landlord) under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. The petitioner challenged the said order of the Tahasildar by filing Tenancy Appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, which was dismissed by order dated 11/09/1970. The Petitioner further raised challenge before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and by order dated 12/05/1972, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Tahasildar and the Sub Divisional Officer, remanding the matter on fresh consideration back to the Tahasildar. The Tribunal framed three points for fresh consideration by the Tahasildar. The said points read as follows :- "(1) Who was the tenant and in possession of the land on tiller's day i.e. 01/04/1963 ? (2) Sakhram Zade be summoned by notice with a view to determine as to whether he was a tenant with respect to the land in 1963- 64 ? The said points read as follows :- "(1) Who was the tenant and in possession of the land on tiller's day i.e. 01/04/1963 ? (2) Sakhram Zade be summoned by notice with a view to determine as to whether he was a tenant with respect to the land in 1963- 64 ? and, (3) Whether the trust satisfied the conditions under Section - 129 (b) of the Tenancy Act as to make the tenancy as not heritable ?" 6. Upon remand, the Tahasildar was expected to conduct fresh enquiry, but the matter remained pending till the petitioner moved an application before the Sub Divisional Officer for compliance of order of the Tribunal. This application was moved in the year 2006 and thereupon, a new case was registered in the years 2006-07, upon which the Tahasildar heard all the interested parties. After completion of hearing on 07/06/2010, the Tahasildar passed an order, holding that predecessor of respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. Sahadeo Wankhede was a tenant and in possession of the aforesaid land on tiller's day i.e. 01/04/1963 and accordingly, the names of respondents No.1 to 3 were confirmed in the record of rights, as the land had been already purchased by the said respondents in pursuance of the earlier order passed in their favour by the Tahasildar in the first round of litigation. The Tahasildar found in his order that the material on record demonstrated that Sahadeo Wankhede was indeed tenant and in possession of the land on 01/04/1963 and that therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner could not be accepted. 7. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional officer. By order dated 25/03/2013, the Sub Divisional Officer allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents No.1 to 3 filed Revision Application before the Tribunal, which was allowed by impugned order dated 03/06/2016, whereby the order of the Sub Divisional Officer was set aside and that of the Tahasildar was restored. 8. In the present writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. G.B. Sawal, submitted that the findings rendered by the Tahasildar, restored by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and order, were based on conjectures and surmises and that a grave error was committed in holding in favour of respondents No.1 to 3. 8. In the present writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. G.B. Sawal, submitted that the findings rendered by the Tahasildar, restored by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and order, were based on conjectures and surmises and that a grave error was committed in holding in favour of respondents No.1 to 3. Despite the fact that the Tahasildar as well as the Tribunal noted the fact that the record of rights, particularly the Khasara of five years from 1962-63 to 1966-67 clearly demonstrated that in the year 1963-64, it was one Sakharam Zade who was the tenant of the petitioner trust and not Sahadeo Wankhede, the predecessor of respondents No.1 to 3, the findings were rendered in favour of respondents No.1 to 3. It was submitted that there was no material on record to show that the Sahadeo Wankhede was the tenant and in possession of the said land as on 01/04/1963 and that when the respondents No.1 to 3 had failed to discharge the burden in that regard, the Tahasildar and the Tribunal ought not have to held in their favour. 9. On the other hand, Mr. S. R. Bhongade, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 submitted that the Tribunal while remanding the matter to the Tahasildar in the first round, had specifically framed three points for determination on fresh enquiry by the Tahasildar. It was pointed out that the Tahasildar in his order upon remand of proceedings, adverted to the three points and in that context appreciated the material on record to hold in favour of respondents No.1 to 3. It was submitted that the petitioner had came with a positive case that the said Sakharam Zade was a tenant and in possession of the land as on 01/04/1963 and having failed to prove the same, the material on record clearly indicated that Sahdeo Wankhede was in possession as tenant and therefore, no error could be attributed to the findings rendered by the Tahasildar, which were confirmed by the Tribunal. It was submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer had committed a grave error in interfering with the order of the Tahasildar, which error was corrected by the Tribunal by a detailed judgment and order. It was submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer had committed a grave error in interfering with the order of the Tahasildar, which error was corrected by the Tribunal by a detailed judgment and order. On this basis it was contended that writ jurisdiction could not be invoked as findings rendered by the Tribunal were based on proper appreciation of the material on record. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it needs to be analyzed, as to whether the findings rendered by the Tribunal are so grossly erroneous or perverse that interference in writ jurisdiction is required. The provisions of the aforesaid Act demonstrate that the most crucial question required to be determined in the present dispute between the parties is, as to whether the predecessor of respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. Sahadeo Wankhede could be said to be a tenant and in possession of the said land on tiller's day i.e. on 01/04/1963. The Tribunal while remanding the proceeding in the first round of litigation was conscious of this crucial aspect of the matter and therefore, the Tribunal framed the above quoted three points for consideration by the Tahasildar upon a fresh enquiry. 11. The order dated 07/06/2010 passed by the Tahasildar, upon remand of proceedings, shows that the said three points were taken into consideration and material on record was appreciated in that context. The document on which reliance was placed by both the parties was the Khasra of five years, wherein details of tenants during the relevant period were recorded. A perusal of the same shows that for the year 1962-63, Sahadeo Wankhede, the predecessor of respondents No.1 to 3, was recorded as tenant and for the year 1963-64, Sakharam Zade was recorded as the tenant. There is no dispute about the fact that from 1964-65 Sahadeo Wankhede was the tenant and he continued as a tenant till his death and thereafter the respondents No.1 to 3 continued as tenants and in possession of the land till date. 12. On the basis of the said document, the petitioner claimed that the tenancy for the year 1963-64 was granted in auction to Sakharam Zade, and that there was evidence of the son of the said person on record to show that the said tenant was indeed in possession of the land as on 01/04/1963. 12. On the basis of the said document, the petitioner claimed that the tenancy for the year 1963-64 was granted in auction to Sakharam Zade, and that there was evidence of the son of the said person on record to show that the said tenant was indeed in possession of the land as on 01/04/1963. It was claimed that the said person, being a devotee of the deity in the Deosthan being managed by the petitioner trust had expressed that he was not claiming to be a tenant in the land. On this basis it was submitted that there was no question of the petitioner losing ownership of the land under the provisions of the said Act. As opposed to this, it was claimed by respondents No.1 to 3 that since the name of their predecessor Sahadeo Wankhede was recorded as a tenant for the year 1962-63, as per usual manner in which agricultural operations were carried out, he had been in possession of the land beyond April 1963 and therefore, as on 01/04/1963, he was tenant and in possession of the land. The Tahasildar took into consideration the documents concerning record of rights and found that when the petitioner had failed to prove its positive claim that Sakharam Zade was in possession of the land as tenant on 01/04/1963, the question as to whether predecessor of the respondents No.1 to 3 was in possession as tenant had to be inferred from the material on record. Thereafter, reference was made to the manner in which Rabi and Kharif crops were cultivated, as also the manner in which the record of rights were maintained and 7/12 extracts were recorded. On this basis, the Tahasildar found that the material demonstrated that Sahadeo Wankhede was indeed a tenant and in possession of the land as on 01/04/1963. The Tahasildar also made reference to various provisions of the aforesaid Act including Sections 19, 36, 38, 39, 39A as also 49A thereof, to render findings in favour of respondents No.1 to 3. 13. The Sub Divisional Officer set aside the order of the Tahasildar by holding that the Tahasildar committed an error on the crucial finding on the aspect of possession of the predecessor of respondents No.1 to 3 on the tiller's day i.e. 01/04/1963. 13. The Sub Divisional Officer set aside the order of the Tahasildar by holding that the Tahasildar committed an error on the crucial finding on the aspect of possession of the predecessor of respondents No.1 to 3 on the tiller's day i.e. 01/04/1963. But, in the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal discussed in detail the material on record as also the findings rendered by the Tahasildar to hold that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was unsustainable and that of the Tahasildar was required to be restored. 14. On perusal of the orders passed by the three authorities below, this Court finds that elaborate analysis of the material on record can be found in the orders of the Tahasildar and the Tribunal, in the context of the specific three points framed by the Tribunal while remanding the matter to the Tahasildar in the first round of litigation. The document pertaining to record of rights shows that the predecessor of respondents No.1 to 3 was shown as tenant for the year 1962-63, while Sakharam Zade was shown as tenant for the year 1963-64. The said document in itself does not show as to who was actually in possession of the land as on 01/04/1963. Even if it is held that the petitioner failed to prove its claim that Sakharam Zade was the tenant and was in possession of the land on 01/04/1963, since the respondents No.1 to 3 are to gain and benefit from the provisions of the said Act and the ownership rights of the petitioner would be adversely affected, it has to be held that respondents No.1 to 3 were required to prove that their predecessor was tenant and in possession of the land on 01/04/1963. In the said document of record of rights it is indicated that for the year 1962-63, the predecessor of respondents No.1 to 3 was indeed recorded as tenant. On the question as to whether he was in possession of the land on 01/04/1963, the material on record and attending circumstances are required to be taken into consideration. The Tahasildar in his order passed in favour of respondents No.1 to 3 found that, no documents on record indicated as to who was in possession of the land on 01/04/1963. On the question as to whether he was in possession of the land on 01/04/1963, the material on record and attending circumstances are required to be taken into consideration. The Tahasildar in his order passed in favour of respondents No.1 to 3 found that, no documents on record indicated as to who was in possession of the land on 01/04/1963. By taking into consideration the manner in which crops for the Rabi and Kharif seasons were taken, it was found that when the crop of wheat was taken on the land such a crop continued upto the month of May of the year. The Tahasildar also found that the Talathi makes entries in the record in the months of August and September of the year as regards position of the crops taken on agricultural land. On the basis of such procedure adopted by the Revenue Officers in the usual course of their business, the Tahasildar came to a conclusion that when the predecessor of respondents No.1 to 3 was shown as tenant for the year 1962-63, he was in possession of the land as on 01/04/1963. 15. The Tribunal also took into consideration these aspects and it was found that the findings rendered by the Tahasildar were based on proper appreciation of Rabi and Kharif seasons in agricultural lands and the procedure adopted as per rules and practice by the Talathi of making entries in 7/12 extracts sometime in August / September. Since these findings rendered by the Tahasildar and confirmed by the Tribunal are based on appreciation of the documentary and other material on record, in the backdrop of the procedure followed by Revenue Officers in their usual course of business, the said findings cannot be said to be perverse or suffering from glaring error necessitating invocation of writ jurisdiction by this Court. In the present challenge raised on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is not sitting in appeal over the findings of the authorities below and therefore, a case for interference in writ jurisdiction is not made out by the petitioner. 16. Apart from this, the Tahasildar and the Tribunal were justified in holding in favour of the respondents No. 1 to 3, on the basis of Sections 19, 36, 38, 39, 39A and 49A of the aforesaid Act. 16. Apart from this, the Tahasildar and the Tribunal were justified in holding in favour of the respondents No. 1 to 3, on the basis of Sections 19, 36, 38, 39, 39A and 49A of the aforesaid Act. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions shows that there is a procedure specified regarding the manner in which possession of land is taken by the tenant and the manner in which possession is taken by a landlord of the land. In the present case, there ought to have been some material on record to show as to how the petitioner landlord took possession of the land from the predecessor of respondents No.1 to 3 prior to 01/04/1963 and then handed it over to the said Sakharam Zade. The detailed procedure provided in the aforesaid provisions would require existence of record to support of such a positive claim made on behalf of the petitioner landlord. In the absence of any such material to support the claim made by the petitioner landlord, the Tribunal as well as Tahasildar were justified in holding in favour of respondents No.1 to 3. 17. As noted above, the successor of said Sakharam Zade could not depose positively regarding claim that Sakharam Zade was in possession of the land on 01/04/1963, because he was admittedly not even born on the said date. It is in this context that the Tahasildar as well as Tribunal have held that even the petitioner landlord completely failed to support his claim, thereby showing that no error was committed by the said authorities while holding in favour of the respondents No.1 to 3. 18. As regards the third point on which the matter was remanded to the Tahasildar, perusal of Section 129(b) of the aforesaid Act shows that the petitioner trust would have been exempted from provisions of the said Act, if it could establish that entire income from the said land was appropriated for the purposes of the petitioner trust. The Tahasildar, upon detailed appreciation of the material on record, found that no accounts or any such document were placed on record by the petitioner to demonstrate that the income from the land was indeed being appropriated for the purpose of the trust. The Tahasildar, upon detailed appreciation of the material on record, found that no accounts or any such document were placed on record by the petitioner to demonstrate that the income from the land was indeed being appropriated for the purpose of the trust. In the absence any such material, the Tahasildar was clearly justified in holding against the petitioner trust in that regard and no fault could be found in the Tribunal restoring the order of the Tahasildar, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 19. There is no dispute about the fact that the predecessor of the respondents No.1 to 3 continued in possession of the said land as tenant from 1964-65 onwards till his death and thereafter the said respondents continued in possession. In fact, after the Tahasildar had passed order in their favour in the first round of litigation, the purchase price was deposited by the said respondents and sale certificate was issued in their favour. They have continued in possession in the said land till date. 20. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any ground for this Court to interfere with the order of the Tribunal while exercising writ jurisdiction. As noted above, the findings rendered by the Tahasildar, which have been restored by the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, are based on appreciation of evidence and material on record in the context of provisions of the aforesaid Act and the manner in which record of rights are maintained by the concerned officers, including the Talathi as per procedure evolved under the relevant Rules. No glaring error or perversity could be demonstrated by the petitioner in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and therefore, this Court finds that there is no substance in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. 21. Rule stands discharged.