1 wp 6821.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6821 OF 2011 1. Bhausaheb S/o Radhaji Gajare, Age : 42 Years, Occu. : Agril., 2. Kisan S/o Radhaji Gajare, Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Agril., 3. Govind S/o Radhaji Gajare, Age : 52 Years, Occu. : Agril., All R/o Brahmangaon, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Petitioners Versus 1. Bhalchandra Shridhar Kukkar, Age : Major, Occu. : R/o Kukkargalli, Yeola, Tq. Yeola, Dist. Nashik. 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. Awwal Karkun, Kopargaon, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4. The Circle Officer, Rawandhe, Tq. Kolpargaon, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Respondents 2 wp 6821.11 Shri V. D. Sapkal, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri S. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioners have impugned the notice dated 29.08.2011 issued by the Circle Officer pursuant to the judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 19.03.2011. 3. Shri Sapkal, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that, the petitioner No. 3 was not party before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and even the M. R. T. had dismissed the application of the present respondent No. 1 as against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, as such, there is no order against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 by M. R. T. directing the petitioners to deliver the possession or authorizing the land holder to take the possession pursuant to the judgment and order of the M. R. T. Inspite of the same the notice dated 29.08.2011 is issued by the Circle Officer directing the petitioners to deliver the possession. 3 wp 6821.11 4. Shri Sapkal, the learned counsel further contends that the petitioners are not challenging the entire order dated 19.03.2011 passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, but have confined their challenge to the said order only to the extent of observation that, "the land holder applicant shall be entitled to recover possession of suit land from the respondent No. 1." According to the M. R. T. the present petitioners are not the tenants and as such the petition filed by the land holder against the petitioners was rejected. 5. Shri Kulkarni, the learned counsel submits that the M. R. T. had held that only Bhikaji is the tenant of the suit land and he was only paying the rent and as such the possession was directed to be delivered by Bhikaji. Merely on the basis of mutation entry in the revenue record, the petitioners cannot claim any right. The learned counsel further contends that the respondent No. 1/land holder is entitled to take recourse of law to recover the possession. 6. The dispute in the present petition is in a very narrow compass. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had dismissed the proceedings filed by the present respondent No. 1 as against the present petitioners. In view of that the Circle Inspector could not 4 wp 6821.11 have issued notice to the present petitioners for delivery of possession from them to the respondent No. 1 pursuant to the orders of the M. R. T. dated 19.03.2011, as the said order is restricted to the extent of Bhikaji only. As such, the said notice dated 29.08.2011 to the extent of present petitioners is quashed and set aside. 7. Though in the prayer clause the judgment of the M. R. T. dated 19.03.2011 is challenged, Shri Sapkal, the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioners are not challenging the whole judgment, but they are aggrieved only by the observations made by the M. R. T. in the operative part of the order suggesting that, " the land holder applicant shall be entitled to recover possession of the suit land from the respondent No. 1." The said observations would only mean that the land holder is in a position to take possession from Bhikaji in respect of the land which Bhikaji is in possession. It would be seen that further the M. R. T. has clarified as under, "the application stands dismissed as against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 without affecting the rights of the land holder to pursue proper remedy if any against the said respondents." This shows that the liberty is granted to the land holder/present respondent No. 1 to pursue 5 wp 6821.11 any other remedy available to him as against the present petitioners which would include all the remedies available under law to take possession from the petitioners. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms, however, with no order as to costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Nov. 11