1 wp2207.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2207 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. V.C. Patil, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. V.D. Salunke holding for Mr. G.V. Sukale, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent no.2. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 7TH APRIL, 2011 M.R.T. has found that individual notices were not issued, and therefore, has remanded matter back. This position is not in dispute. Advocate Mr. Patil attempted to contend that appeal against the order under Section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 is not available under Section 90 because of bar under sub-section 3. Sub-section 3 of Section 90 speaks of interim order and an order envisaged under Section 38-E is not an interim order at all. He has relied upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court reported 2 wp2207.11 at "2001(1) Mh.L.J. 380" ( Bharatlal Hemraj V/s Kondiba Govinda Jadhav). That judgment only considers maintainability of appeal against declaration as published under Section 38-E. It is noted that such declaration can not be presumed to be decision or order based on reasons. Here, the order dated 12.06.2000 passed under Section 38-E giving reasons therefor was questioned before the M.R.T. 2. In view of this, I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. Hence, petition is rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp2207.11