1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders | WRIT PETITION NO. 3056/2001 Shri M.P.Kale,Adv.for petitioner. Shri K.S.Patil,AGP for R.1 Shri P.S.Agrawal,Adv.for R.2 .... CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 05/12/2009. 1] The respondent no.2 Krushnabai W/o Hirabuva Giri had filed the proceeding under Section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, for possession in respect of land Survey No.95-A Gut No.268 admeasuring 5 Acres and 3 Gunthas, situated at Mirkhel, Tq. & Dist.Parhbnai. This application registered as Case No. 1995/N/TNC/98/14, was dismissed by the Deputy Collector, (Land Reforms) Parbhani by order dated 10/8/1998 This order was the subject matter of challenge in 2 appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by respondent no.2 Krushnabai in Appeal No.66/A/98/P. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 12/6/2001 allowed the said appeal and the operative part of the same is reproduced below : 1. The appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 10.8.1998 passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reform), Parbhani in File No. 1995/M/TNC/98/14, is hereby quashed and set aside and the application moved by the appellant under Section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act, is hereby allowed. The appellant be put in possession of the suit land i.e. the land admeasuring 5 acres & 3 gunthas, Gut No.268 towards eastern side of survey no.95-C of village Mirkhel, Taluka and District Parbhani by evicting the respondents. 2] This order is the subject matter of challenge in the instant Writ Petition. 3] The petitioner nos.1 and 2 are the original owners of the land in question, whereas the petitioner no.3 is the purchaser of the land in question from petitioner nos.1 and 2. Hence, all the petitioners have filed this petition challenging the judgment and order dated 12/6/2001 passed in Appeal 3 No.66/A/98/P by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad. Shri M.P.Kale, the learned counsel appears for all the petitioners. 4] The order impugned in this petition has been passed in favour of respondent no.2. Shri P.S.Agrawal, the learned counsel appears for respondent no.2. The Respondent no.3 is one Chandrakant Digambar Masle, R/o Mirkhel, Tq. & Dist.Parbhani. Although the respondent no.3 is served in the matter, no one appears for him. Shri Kale, learned counsel for the petitioners seek permission to delete the name of the respondent no.3 from the array of respondents. The same is permitted at the risk of the petitioners. Necessary amendment be carried out in the cause title of the petition forthwith. 5] The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and the respondent no.2 have filed compromise purshis dated 3/12/2009 in this Court. Shri Kale, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that since petitioner nos.1 and 2 have sold the suit property to the petitioner nos.3 and 4, the petitioners 1 and 2 are not 4 concerned with the present proceedings and hence the compromise purshis has not been signed by them and they are not present in Court today. Shri M.P.Kale, the learned counsel states that the petitioner nos.3 and 4 are present in Court today and identifies petitioner nos.3 and 4. Similarly, Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent no.2 states that the respondent no.2 is present in this Court and identifies the respondent no.2. Shri Patil, learned AGP appears for respondent no.1 and states that the compromise being entered into between the petitioners 3 and 4 and the respondent no.2, the State has no role to play. 6] As per the terms of compromise, respondent no.2 Krushnabai in whose favour the order impugned in the present petition has been passed, has surrendered her rights over the property in question in favour of petitioner nos.3 and 4 upon getting monetary consideration of Rs. 75,000/-. The learned counsels,appearing for parties, as stated above, therefore, submits that the terms of compromise be taken on record and the matter be 5 disposed of in terms thereof. Hence, the compromise purshis dated 3/12/2009 is marked as X for identification and taken on record. The instant Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of compromise purshis X dated 3/12/2009. (R.K.DESHPANDE, J.) umg/wp3056-01