1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 194 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4241 OF 2008 1. Sau. Jijabai W/o Popat Chavan, Age : 46 Years, Occu. : Agril., 2. Popal S/o Shriram Chavan, Age : 49 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Mitra Type Colony, Near Railway Station, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalganon. .. .. .. Appellants (Orig. Petitioners) Versus 1. Savitrabai W/o Govinda Chavan, Age : 56 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Tarwade (Tanda), Tq. Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon. 2. Ashok S/o Shriram Chavan, Age : 31 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Tarwade (Tanda), Tq. Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon. 3. Mangu S/o Chindha Indait, Age : 70 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Wadgaon Lambe, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 4. Zingubai w/o Chindha Indait, Age : 46 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Wadgaon Lambe, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 2 5. The State of Maharashtra Through the Tahsildar Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon. .. .. .. Respondents Shri K. P. Chaware, Advocate for the Appellants. Shri B. R. Warma, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1, 3 and 4. Shri Ganpat Pramod B. Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 12TH AUGUST, 2009. ORAL ORDER [ Per B. R. Gavai, J.] : 1. The present appeal arises out of concurrent finding of fact arrived at by learned Tahsildar Chalisgaon dated 10th October, 2007, thereby allowing the application filed by the respondents and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pachora dated 30th April, 2008, thereby, dismissing the revision and the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 06th August, 2008, thereby rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners. 2. Though, normally we would not have interfered with the order passed by the learned Single Judge as the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the authorities. However, in the peculiar facts in the present matter, it can be seen from the Roznama that, though initially the date for spot inspection was given as 24th April, 2007 and on the said date, the 3 respondents and petitioners were present, however subsequently matter has been adjourned on number of occasions and that when finally the spot inspection was done, the petitioners were not given notice, and as such, they were not present at the time of spot inspection. It would also reveal that, entire orders are based upon the spot inspection. In that view of the matter, we find, it would be in the interest of justice that, the matter be remitted back to the Mamletdar/Tahsildar to hold the spot inspection again in presence of the petitioners and the respondents and thereafter pass the appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as respondents. 3. In the result, the appeal succeeds, the impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar, Chalisgaon dated 10th October, 2007, order passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Pachora dated 30th April, 2008 and the order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4241/2008 dated 06th August, 2008 are quashed and set aside. 4. The matter is remitted back to the Tahsildar, Chalisgaon, for re-considering the application filed by the respondents. The parties shall remain present before the Tahsildar, Chalisgaon on 24th August, 2009, and as such notices shall stand waives. The Tahsildar, Chalisgaon shall fix a date of spot inspection by giving written intimation to both the parties under acknowledgment and would conduct the spot inspection in presence of the parties. 5. Needless to state that after spot inspection is held, the 4 Tahsildar would pass appropriate order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as respondents. Needless to state that, all the question are kept open to be raised before the Tahsildar, Chalisgaon. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/August 09