1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.340 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4115 OF 2007. (JANARDHAN RAMAJI PAHAPALE /Vs/ SMT. ANURADHA DHANANJAY KEKATPURE & ANR.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _ Shri S.R.Deshpande, Advocate for Appellant. Shri R.L.Khapre, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : K.J.ROHEE & R.C.CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : MARCH 12, 2008. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. It appears that the land in question is owned by Shriram Swami Deosthan, Hinganghat. The appellant applied under Section 6(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “B.T.A.L. Act”) for recording his name as tenant of the said land. By order dated 26.02.2004 Tahsildar, Warora rejected the application on 2 the ground that since the land belongs to Shriram Swami Samarth Deosthan provisions of B.T.A.L. Act are not applicable to the appellant. The appeal preferred by the appellant before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Warora was also dismissed. Thereafter the appellant preferred revision before the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur. During pendency of the revision it seems that by communication dated 13.03.2007 Tahsildar, Warora directed the Revenue Inspector, Warora to deliver possession of the land to Shriram Swami Samarth Deosthan and others. In pursuance of the said communication the possession of the land was delivered by the Revenue Inspector, Warora to the respondent on 15.03.2007. 3. It was only after delivery of the possession to the respondent Divisional Commissioner passed order of status-quo on 22nd March, 2007. In fact, the Tahsildar or the Sub-Divisional Officer merely refused declaration of tenancy and nothing was to be followed in pursuance of 3 those orders. As such nothing was to be stayed. It may be noted that it is the respondent who preferred writ petition against the status-quo order. The learned single Judge vacated the order of status-quo and directed Divisional Commissioner to decide the appeal itself on merits. The said order is now challenged by the appellant. 3. It may be noted that the appellant did not challenge the communication dated 13.03.2007 made by the Tahsildar to the Revenue Inspector for delivery of possession. It appears that there was no proper order under which the possession can be delivered to the respondent. However, in the absence of challenge by the appellant to such communication, nothing can be done in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE RR.