1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 296/2010 (Aminkhan Rashidkhan & others VERSUS Shivshankar Trimbakrao Khedekar & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, counsel for the appellants. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 28, 2010 . Heard. By this appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment passed by the first appellate Court remanding the matter to the trial Court with a direction to refer the issue nos.2, 3 and 4 to the competent authority under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 for determination. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants’ apprehend that the findings recorded by the first appellate Court on some questions and issues may come in the way of the appellants while the competent authority decides issue nos.2, 3 and 4 under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958. 2 The apprehension expressed on behalf of the appellants is not well founded. There is no reason for the competent authority under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 to consider the observations made by the District Judge-2, Buldana in the judgment dated 30.04.2010 while deciding the issue of tenancy of Abdulla Khan, the predecessor-in-title of the appellants. It is made clear that the competent authority under the Act of 1958 should not be influenced by the observations made by the District Judge-2, Buldana in the judgment dated 30.04.2010 while deicing the issue nos.2, 3 and 4 which may be referred to the competent authority by the trial Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, the second appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE