(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 754 OF 1999 Mohd. Walioddin s/o. Gulam Gous, Age : Major, R/o. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Manik s/o. Narharappa Chounde, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Parali Vaijanath, District : Beed. 2. Gangadhar s/o. Sonappa Chounde, Age : Major, Occupation & R/o. As above. 3. Syed Rasool s/o. Syed Baban, Age : Major, Occupation & R/o. As above. 4. Shaikh Rasool s/o. Shaikh Raja, Age : Major, Occupation & R/o. As above. 5. The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. S.M. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.5. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 11TH APRIL 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. The order impugned is judgment delivered by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, on 16-12-1998, in Case No. 97/Revision/A/30. By the said judgment, revision filed by present respondent nos.1 to 4 came to be allowed and matter came to be remanded back to Sub- Divisional Officer for deciding the case on merits expeditiously. 3. After hearing respective Counsel, I am satisfied that no interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction. Sub-Divisional Officer had granted stay and that grant was questioned by the (3) present petitioner by filing a revision before Additional Collector, Beed. While considering grievance against this interlocutory order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Additional Collector has decided the appeal filed before Sub- Divisional Officer finally by upholding the order of Tahsildar, Ambajogai, dated 17-1-1997. Thus, when order dated 17-1-1997 was questioned before Sub-Divisional Officer and Sub- Divisional Officer had stayed it and challenge on merit to that order was still to be considered by Sub-Divisional Officer, the Additional Collector negatived that challenge on merits. This order of Additional Collector is, therefore, set aside by Additional Divisional Commissioner vide impugned judgment dated 16-12-1998. 4. It is obvious that in challenge against an interim order, revisional authority could not have rendered the challenge before lower authority itself infructuous by concluding it either way. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, therefore, has corrected this jurisdictional error and directed Sub-Divisional Officer to decide challenge to the order of Tahsildar dated 17-1-1997 on merits. 5. I, therefore, do not see any case made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. The proceedings before Sub- (4) Divisional Officer were already expedited and this court has not granted any interim order but rule on interim relief was issued. 6. In the circumstances, parties are directed to appear before Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambajogai, on 10th May 2011 and Sub-Divisional Officer shall thereafter attempt to decide the challenge presented to him, as early as possible and in any case, by 31st July 2011. 7. With these directions, Rule is discharged. Petition disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/754wp