wp76.92 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 76 OF 1992 1 Sharad s/o Murlidhar Kesekar, Age 40 years, Occ. Business, 2 Kishore s/o Murlidhar Kesekar, Age 38 years, Occ. Business, 3 Bharat s/o Murlidhar Kesekar Age 31 years, Occ. Business, 4 Jalindar s/o Murlidhar Kesekar, Age 29 years, Occ. Business, 5 Kailash s/o Murlidhar Kesekar, Age 27 years, Occ. Business, 6 Prakash s/o Murlidhar Kesekar, Age 25 years, Occ. Business, 7 Uday s/o Murlidhar Kesekar, Age 23 years, Occ. Business, 8 Prashant s/o Murlidhar Kesekar, Age 17 years, Occ. minor, 9 Ankush s/o Murlidhar Kesekar, Age 15 years, Occ. minor, 10 Jitendra s/o Murlidhar Kesekar, Age 10 years, Occ. minor, 11 Shila d/o Murlidhar Kesekar, minor, 12 Shakuntala w/o Murlidhar Kesekar, Age 60 years, Occ. Household, Petition Nos. 8 to 11 u/g of their real mother petitioner No.12 wp76.92 -2- All petitioners residing at Saliwada, Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar ...Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Government of Maharashtra Mantralaya, Mumbai 2 Radhakisan Govindram Maniyar, (Since deceased, through his legal heirs and representative) Shrikisan s/o Radhakisan Maniyar, Age 34 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Sangamner,Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar ...Respondents ..... Mr. S.T. Shelke, advocate for the petitioners Mrs. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. For respondent No.1 Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, advocate h/f Mr. M.Y. Deshmukh, advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 9TH DECEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT :- 1 The petitioners have filed this writ petition prying following reliefs;- “A. Call for the record and proceedings of the case in order to examine the legality, validity, maintainability and propriety of the proceedings and order pursuant to it at wp76.92 -3- Exhibits “E” and “F” respectively. B. By an appropriate writ or order or directions, quash and set aside the proceedings pending before the respondent No.1 filed by the respondent No.2 at exhibit “E’ Collectively. C. Grant stay, pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, of further proceedings pending before the respondent No.1 filed by the respondent No.2 at Exhibit “E’ collectively. D. Grant stay, pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, of the operation, implementation and/or execution of the order intimated by the office of the respondent No. 1, dated 31.10.1991 bearing No. RTS-3391/PK-350/L-6. E. Grant an injunction, pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, by directing the officers, subordinates and/or the servants of the respondent No.1 to act upon the judgment and order dated 11.9.1990 passed by the Additonal Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Revision Application No. 10 of 1989. wp76.92 -4- F. Grant costs of this petition to the petitioners; G. Pass other and further orders as this Hon’ble High court may deem fit in favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice.” 2 It is not necessary to go into the details of the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that this petition is filed challenging the proceeding pending before the respondent No.1 filed by respondent No.2 at Exh. “E’ (Collectively) annexed to this petition. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one Mr. Murlidhar Dnyanoba Kesekar i.e. father of the petitioners herein filed Revision Application No. 10 of 1989 challenging the order of the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar in RTS Appeal No. 97 of 1987 under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The said Revision application came to be allowed and the decision of the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar dated 25.10.1988 was set aside. 4 Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.9.1990, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Revision No. 10 of 1989, respondent No. 2 herein filed second revision wp76.92 -5- before the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra on 27.9.1991 and the said revision was entertained by the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. According to the counsel for the petitioner, second revision was not maintainable. In support of his contention counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sambappa Babappa Teli Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Officer and others, reported in 2003 (4) Bom. C.R. 374, Harish Commercial Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Smt. Varsha Dinesh Joshi and Ors., reported in 2006 (2) All MR 1 and Ashta Lokmanya Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Sangli Vs. Shankar Bapu Nimbalkar and another, reported in 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 394. 5 Learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent No.1 State fairly stated that the second revision was not maintainable. Counsel for the contesting respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the prayers made in the petition and submitted that the second revision was maintainable. 6 Upon hearing counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the judgment of this court in the case of Sambappa Babappa Teli (supra) and more particularly para 20, 21 and 22 of the said judgment, it is crystal clear that the issue raised in this petition is wp76.92 -6- no more res-integra. This Court in the said judgment has held that the second revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is not tenable. This Court in the cases of Harish Commercial Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. and Ashta Lokmanya Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Sangli (supra) while considering Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 has taken a view that second revision is not maintainable. 7 It is not necessary to burden this judgment by discussing the facts in detailed. Suffice it to say that the point raised in this petition is already answered by the authoritative pronouncements by this Court in the case of Sambappa Babappa Teli (supra). 8 In the above circumstances, in my opinion, the second revision filed by respondent No.2 before the Secretary for Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, was not maintainable. Writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause “B”. Rule made absolute in the above terms. Writ petition stands disposed of. Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of in view of the disposal of writ petition. *****