1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5252 OF 2008 (Harish Anantram Chandak & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 11, 2008. Heard Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Kothari, learned AGP for the respondents. The present matter has been filed before this Court with a grievance that though the petitioners have filed a revision under Section 111 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as Bombay Tenancy Act), as the respondents have not appointed any Presiding Officer, the Revision cannot be heard. The grievance of Shri Deshpande, learned counsel on merits is that the petitioners are third purchasers in land and therefore, Section 57 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, will not have any application. He further states that the conversion of status from occupant Class II to Class I was done under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, legally long back 2 even before the predecessor-in-tile of present petitioners purchased the land. The learned AGP states that this Court itself should decide the point as the proceedings were initiated suo motu and protection of possession of the petitioner will defeat the purpose of moving such suo motu proceedings. I am not inclined to accept the arguments of the learned AGP. I find that prima facie an arguable case is involved in the revision, which is filed by the petitioners. Hence, till the respondents appoint the Presiding Officer on Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the prayer for interim relief moved by the petitioners therein is considered by such Presiding Officer, the parties are directed to maintain status quo in relation to suit property as on today. The respondents to make appropriate arrangements in this respect as early as possible. If the prayer for interim relief is not heard in revision by the end of April 2009, liberty to the respondents to move this Court again in the matter. With this direction, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.