: 1 : wp.1977.2011.sxw vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1977 OF 2011 Shri Tejbahadur Shankarlal Shriwastav & anr. ... Petitioners V/s. Additional Collector, Satara & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.V. Anturkar i/b S.B. Deshmukh for the Petitioners Ms.P.S. Cardozo, AGP, for the Respondent No.1 Mr.V.S. Talkute for Resp. No.2 CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE: JULY 7, 2011. P.C.: 1. This Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division in proceeding bearing No.RTS/Appeal/Satara/35/2009 dated 6.12.2010. By this order, the Additional Commissioner confirms the order and direction of the Additional Collector, Satara dated 31.1.2009. 2. Although a preliminary objection is raised to the maintainability of the writ petition by contending that u/s 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, revisional jurisdiction is available to the petitioners to impugn the order of the Additional Commissioner, I have heard both sides on the merits as well. The order of the Additional Collector is passed on an application made by the : 2 : wp.1977.2011.sxw contesting respondent No.2 to the writ petition. He made an application stating therein that certain lands situated at Phaltan, Taluka Phaltan are the properties of one Balaji Devasthan. These are lands classified as Devasthan Inam Class- III. His allegation was that the Mahant of Devasthan was unmarried/bachelor having no issues and legal heirs. The present petitioners projected themselves as heirs of the said Mahant Bairagi and on the basis that these are private lands seeking to acquire the same. It was his case that these lands were given as Jagir to the said Devasthan by Inampatra of 26.10.1866. On this application, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phaltan made enquiries and submitted his report on 31.12.2008 to the Additional Collector. Equally the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phaltan has on the basis of the letter issued by the Director of Land Records, Pune informed that Devasthan Land Alienation Register is not available. The Additional Collector referred to certain documents produced before him and expressed a prima facie view that in accordance with the orders of the Court, while making a direction of regrant, the land records ought to have been corrected. The land record still bears the name of Balaji Devasthan. The land record now bears the name of Bairagi. In these circumstances, the order of the Tehsildar passed wayback in the year 1960 may not be in accordance with law. Additionally, the revenue entries No.8387, 15490 and 14918 need to be scrutinised. For this purpose, he has in accordance with the powers conferred by section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code directed that a fresh enquiry be held by the Sub-Divisional Officer. 3. Such an order was challenged before the Additional Commissioner by : 3 : wp.1977.2011.sxw the Petitioners. The Additional Commissioner had before him all the papers including the decrees of the Courts and the orders passed by this Court as well. However, whether the lands located at Phaltan were Devasthan Inam lands at all and whether they were held by Devasthan are matters which will have to be decided in the re-enquiry, according to him. Therefore he was of the opinion that all papers which the petitioners have produced before him can very well be produced during the course of such re-enquiry. I do not see how such a direction of the Additional Collector and the refusal to interfere therewith by the Additional Commissioner causes any prejudice to the petitioners. It is not as if their right, title or interest in the property has been in any way interfered with or any issue with regard thereto has been adjudicated and decided. The matter will have to go back for the authorities to peruse the records and it is for them to give a final opinion on the basis of revenue entries. To my mind, the exercise that has been directed does not at this stage cause any prejudice to the petitioners and, therefore, the concurrent orders do not require any interference in writ jurisdiction. 4. The petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)