1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2252 OF 2004 (Dnyandeorao Sampatrao Pawade & ors .v. Rangarao Onkarsa Surpatne & ors) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri N.A. Vyawahare, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri V.G. Palshikar, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. 03RD JUNE, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. The predecessor in title of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 was allotted land Gat No.907 situated at Thilori, Taluka Daryapur, District Amravati by Naib Tahsildar as Class-II land with restrictions on transfer as per MLR Code. The respondent Nos.4 to 6 in the year 1996 sold out this property to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 without obtaining the prior permission of the Collector, as contemplated in allotment order. The petitioners claim that they are in the management of Mansing Buwa Temple Trust. They further claim that they are in possession of the aforesaid land. The petitioners challenged the sale in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 by the respondent Nos.4 to 6 2 before the SDO. The learned SDO by passing order dated 25.03.1998 set aside the sale deed and forfeited the above land to the government. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 thereafter approached the Additional Collector at Amravati by preferring an appeal. The Additional Collector, by his order dated 24.11.2003, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and set aside the order passed by the SDO. The petitioners thereafter challenged the order of Additional Collector by filing revision under Section 247 before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner, by the order dated 31st March, 2004, which is impugned in the present petition, dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners. The Additional Commissioner though held that the sale deed is illegal, was pleased to further held that the same can be regularized in view of the Government Resolution dated 08.09.1983. The Additional Commissioner recorded categorical finding that the aforesaid Government Resolution is applicable to the present case and, therefore, held unauthorised sale can be regularized on payment of 62½ to 75 per cent net unearned income into government treasury. The Additional Commissioner further granted liberty to the 3 respondents to pray for regularization of their sale- purchase transaction of Class-II occupancy before competent authority within a period of 90 days from the date of communication of the order. Shri V.G. Palshikar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 makes a statement that his clients have already applied to the competent authority within 90 days for regularization of sale-purchase transaction of Class-II occupancy. The learned Additional Commissioner refused to interfere in the revision filed by the petitioners on the ground that in view of the Government Resolution dated 08.09.1983, the sale transaction can be regularized and accordingly liberty was given to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. I do not see any error or perversity in the conclusion arrived by the learned Additional Commissioner so as to enable to exercise my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed as such. JUDGE *rrg.