1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2474 of 1992 Tulshiram Sitaram Witekar Age major, Occ. Ex-soldier, R/o. Karjat, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. Petitioner Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra 2] The Collector, Ahmednagar. 3] The Revenue Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. Respondents Mr. N.D. Sonawane, holding for Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for petitioner Mr. V.H. Dighe, AGP for respondents. CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR J. DATE :4th May, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT :- 2 1] By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik, dated 25th September, 1992, by which the Commissioner has rejected the application for stay in the appeal preferred by the petitioner before him. 2] It is the case of the petitioner that Gram Panchayat, Karjat, passed a resolution that C.T.S. No. 32 be allotted to the petitioner, as he is an Ex-soldier. According to the petitioner, he has deposited an amount of Rs.2390/- in the Government Treasury and House No. 837/1 was allotted to him by the Collector, Ahmednagar. Subsequently, the Collector, Ahmednagar passed an order on 25th August, 1992, cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the said plot is reserved for Mangal Karyalaya and Auditorium. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner was subjected to notices for handing over possession of the land. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for interim stay. But the Revenue Commissioner has refused to grant stay to the notice dated 19.9.1992, issued by the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3] This court while admitting the matter, has already granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner and the matter 3 has reached for final hearing, now, after about 11 years. 4] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the interim order, the petitioner is still in possession, and the appeal is still pending before the Commissioner. 5] During the pendency of the petition, the interim relief is operating for considerable length of time. It would, therefore, be appropriate to direct the Commissioner to decide the pending appeal filed against the order of the District Collector Ahmednagar, dated 25th August, 1992, In File No. Revenue Office 3A/1204/1992, expeditiously. Unfortunately, the number of the said appeal filed before the Revenue Commissioner is not on record. If the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the abovereffed order dated 25th August, 1992 is still pending before the respondent No.2 – Revenue Commissioner, he may decide the said appeal on urgent basis, within a period of 3 moths from the date of receipt of writ of this court. Till the appeal is decided by the Revenue Commissioner, the interim relief granted by this court in favour of the petitioner, shall continue to operate. If the petitioner is in possession and he is not evicted, he may not be evicted till the appeal is decided by the Revenue Commissioner, Nasik. Rule made absolute in above terms, with no orders as to costs. [P.B. MAJMUDAR,J.] grt/wp