1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1923 OF 2008 Raja Bahadur Internaional Limited Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents Dr.Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior counsel i/b.Mr.S.G.Karandikar for the petitioner. Mr.Sameer Patil, AGP for respondents 1 to 3. Mr.N.P.Deshpande for respondent no.4. Mr.P.M.Gore for respondent no.5. CORAM : R.V. MORE,J. DATED : 21st July, 2008 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petition takes exception to the order passed by respondent no.2 whereby respondent no.4’s appeal is admitted for final disposal. Dr.Tulzapurkar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the subject matter of this appeal was an order passed by the Additional Collector, on 30.4.2007 whereunder respondent no.4’s application for re-grant of watan land under section 3 of Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 (for short "Act of 1958") was rejected. He further submitted that under Section 3(2) 2 of the Act of 1958, an appeal is provided against this order to the State Government and, therefore, appeal is not maintainable before the Additional Commissioner. 3. Mr.Deshpande, the learned counsel for respondent no.4, per contra submitted that the learned Collector by the order dated 30.4.2007 also disposed of enquiry under section 20 of the Revenue Code and held that the land in question belongs to the petitioner and so far as this finding is concerned, he can challenge the same, by filing an appeal under section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before the Commissioner. He fairly conceded that he is required to challenge the Collector’s order regarding re-grant of land before the State Government under the provisions of section 3(2) of the Act of 1958. Mr.Deshpande, the learned counsel for respondent no.4, after taking instructions from his client makes a categorical statement that his appeal before respondent no.2 be restricted to the enquiry under section 20 of the Revenue Code and he may be given liberty to challenge the collector’s order regarding re-grant of watan land, before appropriate Forum. 4. Dr.Tulzapurkar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that if respondent no.4’s appeal is restricted to the enquiry under section 20 of the Revenue Code, then, he has no grievance about the 3 impugned order. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of the petition by the following order: ORDER (i) The statement of Mr.Deshpande, the learned counsel for respondent no.4 that his Appeal before respondent no.2 challenging the collector’s order passed on 30.4.2007 be restricted to the enquiry under section 20 of the Revenue Code is accepted. (ii) Respondent no.4 is at liberty to challenge the Collector’s order dated 30.4.2007 so far as it relates to re-grant of watan land before the Appropriate Authority. (iii) It is made clear that all the points and contentions of the respective parties are kept open and the same be adjudicated upon on its own merits. 6. With the above observation, writ petition is disposed of accordingly. [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE,J.] MORE,J.] MORE,J.]