1 wp8637-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8637 OF 2010 Abubakar Shahbuddin Sayyad & Ors .. Petitioners versus Vishnu Maruti Diwate Pawar (deceased) through his heirs Kamlabai Vishnu Diwate & Ors .. Respondents Mr.H.P.Ghadigaonkar for the petitioners. Mr.D.S.Sawant i/by Ms.Mugdha Jadhav and Mr.Rajesh Parab for respondent Nos.1(4) to 1(6). Mr.R.T.Walawalkar with Mr.J.S.Thakur i/by Global Juris Consults for respondent Nos.2, 3A to 3C, 4A to 4D, 5, 6, 8A to 8C, 9, 10A, 10B, 10D, 11A to 11C, 12, 14 and 15. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 12th August 2011. P.C.: . At the stage at which the matter is placed today and finding that the service is complete, it is taken up for admission and final disposal. 2 wp8637-10.doc 2 Heard parties. Perused the order, copy of which is at page 44 of the petition paper book. All that the order says is that the petitioners application for stay of the proceedings before the Tahsildar, Karad, has been rejected. 3 The Tahsildar, Karad, is yet to pass final order in Tenancy Case No.89B/57. As and when final orders are passed in the subject proceedings and they are adverse to the petitioners, then, the petitioners have ample remedies under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, to challenge those final orders. Needless to state that while challenging the final order of the Tahsildar, the petitioner can raise appropriate pleas including that the Tahsildar should have heard him and considered his objections and rejection of this application is improper. All contentions of all parties in that behalf are kept open. Writ petition is disposed off. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)