1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1242 OF 1991 Smt. Chandrabhagabai Punja Rannaware, age 55 years, occ.household work, r/o Takalibhan, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar, deceased, L.Rs. 1- Digambar Punja Rannaware, age 40 years, 2- Paraji Punja Rannaware, age 42 years, 3- Balasaheb Punja Rannaware, age 36 years, 4- Kadubai Ramdas Thorat, age 55 years, 5- Suman Bapu Adangala, age 45 years, occ. Of all Agril., All R/o Takli Bhan, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar ...Petitioners (Orig. appellant and widow of Original Opponent) VERSUS 1- Ankush Baburao Rannaware, age major, 2- Lavha Bhaurao Rannaware, age major, Both agriculturists, residents of Takalibhan, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar ...Respondents (Orig. Respondents and Orig. Applicants) 2 ..... Shri S.T.Shelke, advocate for the petitioner Shri C.K.Shinde, advocate for respondents ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 24th November, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Perused. 2 By the present writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 12.10.1990 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Revision Application No. 46 of 1985 and sought to restore the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Shrirampur in Case No. IVS-88/78 dated 24.11.1978 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3 The factual matrix is that the respondents herein had preferred an application before the Additional Tahsildar under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code in respect of the lands bearing Gut Nos. 14 and 15, situated at Takli Bhan, Taluka Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. Notices were issued and evidence of the parties was recorded therein. However, the Additional Tahsildar, Shrirampur passed an order on 24.11.1978 3 and thereby rejected the said application to restore the afore said lands to the applicants. 4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the respondents herein preferred Appeal No. IVS.SR.14/79 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner Division, Sangamner, challegning the afore said order. Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner Division, Sangamner allowed the said appeal by order dated 30.9.1980 and thereby set aside the order of the Additional Tahsildar dated 24.11.1978 and matter was remanded back to the Additional Tahsildar for fresh inquiry to be decided in accordance with law. 5 Thereafter the petitioners’ father preferred appeal before the Collector, Ahmednagar bearing Appeal No. WTN. Appeal No. 3 of 1980, against the order dated 30.9.1980 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner, remanding back the case to the Additional Tahsildar for fresh inquiry and decision. However, the Collector, Ahmednagar dismissed the said appeal by order dated 30.11.1984 and thereby confirmed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner. 6 Being aggrieved by the said order dated 30.11.1984 4 passed by the Collector, Ahmednagar, the petitioners mother filed Revision bearing Revision Application No. 46 of 1985 before the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik challenging the order passed by the Collector, Ahmednagar. However, the said Revision also came to be dismissed by the judgment and order dated 12.10.1990, rendered by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik and thereby the order passed by the Collector, Ahmednagar in Appeal No. 3 of 1980 dated 30.11.1984 was confirmed. 7 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order dated 12.10.1990, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, the petitioners’ mother preferred the present Writ Petition challenging the said judgment and order dated 12.10.1990 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and sought to quash and set aside the said order and further requested to restore the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar dated 24.11.1978. 8 Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. 9 After considering the rival contentions of the parties, in fact the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner Division, Sangamner 5 by his order dated 30.9.1980 had set aside the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar dated 24.11.1978 and directed to remand back the matter to the Additional Tahsildar, Shrirampur for fresh inquiry in accordance with law and the substantial period of almost 29 years have been elapsed thereafter and had the matter been remanded back as per the said order to the Additional Tahsildar, Shrirampur, by this time, the matter would have been decided and even Appeal/Revision filed thereafter, if any, would have been decided. 10 In view of the facts of the matter, without adverting to the merits of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the matter needs to be remanded back to the Additional Tahsildar, Shrirampur, as directed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner Division, Sangamner and which was subsequently confirmed by the Appellate/Revisional authorities as afore said and fresh inquiryis required to be conducted in the matter, in accordance with law, in the interest of justice. 11 In the result, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, present Writ Petition bears no substance and same is 6 devoid of any merits, and hence, same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the Writ Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Interim stay stands vacated. Rule stands discharged accordingly. Needless to say that the Additional Tahsildar, Shrirampur is directed to decide the matter on its merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within the period of nine months from the date of receipt of the writ from this court and the parties to cooperate in the proceeding and all points are kept open for agitation by the parties before the Additional Tahsildar, Shrirampur. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/wp1242.91