WP 170/09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 170 OF 2009 Prakash s/o. Hiraman Bhill & Ors. ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. A.G. Talhar, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. K.B. Choudhari, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent No. 18. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 4th January, 2012. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. Mr. Talhar, learned counsel for petitioners submits that after passing of the order by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram : Smt. Nishita Mhatre & B.R. Gavai, JJ.] dated 14th January 2009, the applications, which were already filed by the petitioners before the Collector for regularization of their possession, were decided by the Collector. It is further submitted that the Collector rejected the applications of the petitioners. Against the said order WP 170/09 2 of rejection, the petitioners preferred revision before the Additional Commissioner, Nashik. The Additional Commissioner too rejected the petitions filed by the petitioners before nearabout six months. The learned counsel further submits that against the order of the Collector and Commissioner, Writ Petition No. 3983/2011 was preferred. According to the learned counsel, by an order dated 15.6.2011 the learned Single Judge admitted the petition. 3. In the meanwhile Review Petition No. 48/2009 was filed in the proceeding of Writ Petition No. 170 of 2009 by Shaikh Rashik Shaikh Musa Kureshi and others. By an order dated 26th August 2011 the Division Bench [Coram : B.R. Gavai & M.T. Joshi, JJ.] of this Court recalled the order passed on 14th January 2009 and restored the petition to its original position by allowing the Review Petition. During the course of hearing, it transpired that the petitioners had filed another review petition in respect of order passed in Writ Petition No. 3046/1990, which came to be rejected. Mr. Talhar, learned counsel submits that the petitioners are in occupation of the subject land since long and allottees of land like review applicants in Review Petition No. 48/2009 were not entitled for allotment. WP 170/09 3 4. We have perused the record placed before us and the order passed in Review Petition No. 48/2009. 5. We are not addressing any issue in respect of the merits of the claim of the present petitioners and the review applicants. 6. In view of the pendency of Writ Petition No. 3983/2011, we find that nothing survives in this petition to be decided by this Court at this stage. 7. The petition is accordingly disposed of. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/