1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1287/2009 (Manoj Gulabsingh Sattawan VERSUS State of Mah. & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri O.Y. Kashid, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.M. Deshpande, A.G.P. for the R-1 & 2. Shri A.S. Mardikar, counsel for the R-3 & 4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 09, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Amravati on 30.01.2009 in an appeal filed by the respondent nos.3 and 4 under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order dated 30.01.2009, it appears that the same cannot be prejudicial to the petitioner in this case. By filing an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue code, the respondent nos.3 and 4 had challenged the order passed by the Collector, Akola on 09.10.2007 cancelling the order of amalgamation dated 24.07.2006. The respondent nos.3 and 4 had purchased 2 certain property of the petitioner as the total area of their plot was only 8236 Square Feet and the area required for opening a petroleum outlet ought to have been 10000 Square Feet. Later on, since the respondent nos.3 and 4 found that the land of the petitioner was not necessary for them, they resold the property purchased from the petitioner, to the petitioner. It is in this background that the Collector, Akola had cancelled the order of amalgamation by an order dated 09.10.2007. The petitioner had already repurchased the property which was sold by the petitioner to the respondent nos.3 and 4. The petitioner cannot be aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati on 30.01.2009 setting aside the order dated 09.10.2007. The respondent nos.3 and 4 were aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector on 09.10.2007 and the petitioner has nothing to do with the matter which is surely between the Collector & the respondent nos.3 and 4 or the Petroleum Corporation & the respondent nos.3 and 4. By the impugned order, it is rightly held by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati that the respondent nos.3 & 4 and the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited would suffer badly whereas the petitioner has 3 nothing to gain from it and in such circumstances it was necessary to quash and set aside the order passed by the Collector on 09.10.2007. The order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE