8.wp-9909-10.doc jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9909 OF 2010 Smt. Khatunbibi Javaji Mohammad Yusuf Patel and Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. Mrs. Madhavi Bhamre and Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Uday Warunjikar for petitioners Mr. V.S.Gokhale AGP for respondent no.2 CORAM : S.A.BOBDE AND SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J J. DATE : NOVEMBER 21, 2011. P.C.: 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The only contention of Mr. Warunjikar appearing for the petitioners is that the Tahsildar ought not have continued with the proceedings under Section 32(g) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. According to Mr. Warunjikar, the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division has set aside the order dated 1.6.2010 in Revision No. 364 of 2010 by which the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar for further action. 3. Mr. Gokhale, the learned AGP points out that the Tahsildar 1 8.wp-9909-10.doc has taken note of the fact that the order remanding the matter to him i.e. order dated 1.6.2010 has been set aside by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, on 26.8.2010 and that, therefore, he was not entitled to continue with the proceedings and that the proceedings have been closed. 4. Needless to say that any order by the Tahsildar except the order closing the proceedings passed after the order dated 26.8.2010, will be invalid. 5. Rule is made absolute in above terms. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ S.A.BOBDE, J. ] 2