IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2350 OF 2007 Aspen Properties Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Nitin Thakker, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Praveer Divan, Sr.Counsel & Mr.Ahmed Sayed i/b Mr.G.C.Mohanty for Petitioners. Mr.P.G.Lad, A.G.P. for Respondents 1 to 6. None for Respondents 7 to 10. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 13, 2008. MARCH 13, 2008. MARCH 13, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Mr.Lad, A.G.P. waives notice for Respondents 1 to 6. None appears for Respondents 7 to 10 though duly served. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. : 2 : 4. By this Writ Petition, Petitioners have challenged order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 1st December 2005 and 5th December 2006 respectively, dismissing the Revision Application preferred by the Petitioners before the State Government on the ground that no substantial and justifiable ground has been raised for admitting the Revision Application. 5. According to the Petitioners, the Revisional Authority proceeded to decide the Revision Petition, which is a statutory remedy available to the Petitioners, without giving prior notice to the Petitioners about the hearing of the Petition nor has recorded reasons as to on what basis the conclusion referred to in the communication purported to be orders dated 1st December 2005 and 5th December 2006 has been reached by the Revisional Authority. Insofar as this grievance of the Petitioners is concerned, the same deserves acceptance on plain reading of the two communications purported to be orders passed by the Revisional Authority at Exhibit ‘O’ and Exhibit ‘P’ dated 1st December 2005 and 5th December 2006 : 3 : respectively. On this finding, no further enquiry into the matter is necessary except to observe that the said orders at Exhibit ‘O’ and Exhibit ‘P’ deserve to be set-aside and the Revision Application filed by the Petitioners before the State Government shall stand restored to the file to its original number to be decided by the Revisional Authority afresh in accordance with law. All questions arising in the said Revision Application will have to be decided on its own merits uninfluenced by the impugned orders or for that matter, the present order. 6. Learned A.G.P. would, however, contend that having regard to the undertaking given before this Court, Petitioners were disentitled from pursuing remedy of Revision Application. Learned A.G.P. invited my attention to the orders dated 5th June 2002 as also dated 2nd May 2002 passed in Writ Petition No.1289 of 2002. Significantly, the said Writ Petition was filed by Respondent No.7 herein, who incidentally is the tenant of the Petitioners. It is the Respondent No.7/Petitioner in the said Writ Petition who had given undertaking : 4 : before this Court as is noted in the order dated 2nd May 2002. There is nothing to indicate that the Petitioners herein have given any undertaking in the said proceedings. 7. Thus understood, it would necessarily follow that the Petitioners cannot be non-suited in respect of their statutory remedy available to them under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. In the circumstances, the objection taken on behalf of the learned A.G.P. as referred to earlier only deserves to be stated to be rejected. 8. There is one more aspect that needs to be addressed in this order. During the pendency of this Petition, one of the question posed was whether the Petitioners were entitled to avail of the Amnesty Scheme introduced by the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 14th March 2002 at Page 56 Exhibit F. The Petitioners were given liberty to pursue that matter before the appropriate Authority. The Tahsildar, in turn, has disallowed the request of the Petitioners for extending benefit under the Amnesty Scheme for the : 5 : reasons recorded in his order dated 11th January 2008. The Petitioners, by amending the present Petition have also sought permission to challenge the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar dated 11th January 2008 at Exhibit ‘U’. Indubitably, the said order is appellable in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. If so, the Petitioners may be free to carry the said matter in appeal and/or revision as may be advised within four weeks from today, which will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. 9. It is made clear that this order is not an expression of opinion on the merits of the restored Revision Application or the proposed proceedings to be resorted to by the Petitioner against the order dated 11th January 2008 passed by the Additional Tahsildar (N.A.) Exhibit ‘U’ one way or the other. Those proceedings will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. 10. The Petitioners to appear before the Revisional Authority so as to proceed with the restored Revision Application on 17th April 2008 at : 6 : 3.00 p.m. in the Office of the Revisional Authority on which date, the Revisional Authority to proceed with the hearing of the restored Revision Application on the same date or such other date as may be convenient while ensuring that the same is finally disposed of not later than 31st May 2008. 11. Till the said Revision Application is finally disposed of, the Respondents 1 to 6 shall not take any precipitative action against the Petitioners on the basis of orders which are impugned in the Revision Application. 12. This Petition is disposed of on the above terms. No order as to costs. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.