1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.7458 of 2000 Arvind Rajaram Karnik & ors. Petitioners Vs. Ganpat Narayan Pawar since deceased through LRs 1a) Paravati Ganpat Pawar since deceased through LRs: 1b) Sakharam Ganpat Pawar & ors. Respondents Mr.S.M.Railkar for petitioners. Mr.Niranjan Shimpi for resp.nos.1-b to 1-f. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. June 5, 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Railkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.Shimpi appears for the respondents. Mutation Entry No. 606 effected on 16/12/1956 in favour of the present respondent was set aside by the Tahsildar at the instance of the present petitioners and, therefore, the respondent had filed RTS Appeal No.8 of 1995. The said appeal was allowed and the petitioners’ application was remanded for fresh enquiry. The petitioners, therefore, approached the District Collector in RTS Appeal No. 14 of 1996 and it was dismissed on 16/1/1998. The petitioners then approached the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan 2 Division, Mumbai by way of revision which also came to be dismissed on 3/3/2000 and hence this petition. . Though the petition has been pending for admission for the last about eight years, there was no stay on the enquiry directed to be conducted by the Tahsildar afresh. It would be, therefore, in the interest of all the parties that the enquiry directed to be conducted by the Tahsildar de novo is completed after hearing all the parties concerned within a fixed period and at the same time no case is made out to disturb the concurrent findings recorded by the three authorities below in support of the remand. . Hence the petition is rejected summarily and it is directed that the Tahsildar shall complete the de novo enquiry as directed by the SDO and confirmed subsequently, as expeditiously as possible and in any case before 31st October 2008, if the same is still pending. (B.H.MARL