1 Wp3683.10 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3683 OF 2010 The Iranian Zorastrian Anjuman Trust. .. Petitioner Vs Smt. Meheru Iruch Dalal & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri S.G. Karandikar for the Petitioner. Shri G.R. Rege i/by Shri S.M. Railkar for the Respondents. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE :11TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has confined his case to prayer clause (c). Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents raised an objection to the said prayer by pointing out that a finding has been recorded by the authorities that no material was produced by the Petitioner in support of plea of exemption under Section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. 3. I have considered the submissions. Perusal of the impugned order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and in particular Paragraph 6 thereof shows that the only submission made against the order of remand 2 Wp3683.10 was for issuing a direction to Tahsildar to decide the issue of exemption under Section 88-B of the said Act. While dealing with the said submission, the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has observed thus:- “6. .....Only submission is made that directions be issued to Tahsildar to decide the issue of exemption u/s. 88B of B.T. & A.L. Act. As referred to above, no documents were produced in support of that contention, so, there is no question of giving direction. When the fresh enquiry is directed u/s. 32G parties will be at liberty to put forth their claims, and there is no necessity to issue any further direction to Tahsildar about the procedure to be followed by him or to decide particular issues while deciding 32G proceeding afresh.” 4. Thus, what is observed is that as a fresh enquiry is directed under Section 32G, the parties will be at liberty to put forth their claims and therefore, it was not necessary to issue further direction to the Tahsildar. 5. In any event, the application made by the Petitioner under Section 88-B(2) of the said Act will have to be decided on its own merits. However, proceedings on the basis of order of remand need not be stayed on the ground that the said application is pending. Interests of justice will be served if the proceedings of the application made by the Petitioner is ordered to be concluded expeditiously. 6. Hence, the Petition is disposed of by passing the following 3 Wp3683.10 order :- (a) The Application dated 28th February, 2010 submitted by the Petitioner under Section 88-B(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. (b) All contentions of the parties in the application are kept open. (c) Subject to what is observed above, the Petition is disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J)