1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3559 OF 2009 Bhor Education Society, Bhor .. Petitioner. Vs. Rajgad Dnyanpeeth, Bhor & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Y.G.Shinde i/b R.S.Khandeparkar for the petitioner. Mr.L.M.Acharya for respondent no.1. Mr.R.M.Patne A.G.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATED : 14TH OCTOBER, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. By consent, the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.7.2008 passed by respondent no.6 by which the revision application filed by respondent no.1 has been allowed. Respondent No.1 had filed the said revision application before respondent no.6 challenging the order dated 26.9.2007 passed by the Commissioner. By this order, the Commissioner has rejected respondent no.1’s application by which he sought rejection of the revision application filed by the petitioner against the order of Collector dated 22.6.2001, as not 2 maintainable. 4. The basic order dated 22.6.2001 was passed by the Collector on the application filed by respondent no.1 deleting names of the petitioners from kabjedar column in respect of the land in dispute. That application was allowed and it was directed that the State be shown as kabjedar in the record of rights. That order of the Collector dated 22.6.2001 was challenged by the petitioner, by way of revision, before the Commissioner. In the revision pending before the Commissioner, respondent no.1 filed an application, as aforementioned, seeking rejection of the revision as not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has instructions to state that the revision petition No.489 of 2001 filed by the petitioners, challenging the order of the Collector dated 22.6.2001, itself be disposed of as not maintainable and, the order dated 9.7.2008 may also be set aside. Mr.Acharya, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that he has no objection for disposing of the revision as prayed and for setting aside the order impugned in the petition. In view of the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice: The order dated 9.7.2008 passed by respondent no.6 in the revision filed by respondent no.1 is set aside. The petitioner is allowed to withdraw revision petition No.489 of 2001 pending 3 before the Commissioner at Pune within a period of two weeks from today. If the petitioners fail to withdraw the revision as aforementioned within the time stipulated, the revision shall stand dismissed and the Commissioner shall pass formal order in that regard within a period of four weeks therefrom. Consequently, the order dated 22.6.2001 passed by the Collector stands confirmed. The withdrawal of the revision shall not preclude the concerned authority from taking further steps in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1947 insofar as the land in dispute is concerned. All contentions of the parties in respect of the application of the Bombay Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragments Act, 1947 are kept open. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)