( 1 ) wp1807.93 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1807 OF 1993 1. Bhanudas s/o. Kanhuji Gaikwad .. Petitioners Age. 45 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Jamkhed, Tal. Ambad, Dist. Jalna. 2. Vithal s/o. Kanhuji Gaikwad Age. 40 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 3. Pralhad s/o. Babu Gaikwad, Age. 35 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through Dy. Collector, Land Reforms, Jalna. 2. Radhakishan s/o. Durgasingh Chavan Age. 66 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Jamkhed, Tal. Ambad, Dist. Jalna. [deleted as per order dated 11.06.1993] Mr. P.F. Patni, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.B. Choudhari, A.G.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 11.03.2011 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. This writ petition is filed with the following prayers :- ( 2 ) wp1807.93 “A) The writ petition of the petitioners may please be allowed. B) The judgment and order passed by the Dy. Collector, Land Record, Jalna, in File No. LR/ICL/CR/2/92 dated 29.05.1993 may please be stayed till the final disposal of appeal pending before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad. C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the execution and operation of judgment and order passed by Dy. Collector, L.R. Jalna in file No. LR/ICL/CR/2/92 dated 29.5.93 may kindly be stayed. D) Any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioners found entitled and the circumstances of the case permits be awarded as per law.” 2. It is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail. However, it would be appropriate to refer to the facts stated in para 6 to 8 of the petition. It is stated by the petitioners therein that the petitioners challenged the judgment and order of the Dy. Collector, Land Reforms, Jalna, in File No. LR/ICL/CR/2/92 dated 29.05.1993, before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (M.R.T.), Aurangabad, by way of filing appeal on 09.06.1993. As it is evident from the facts stated in paras 6 to 8 that at the relevant time regular Member of in the M.R.T. was not appointed, as a result the appeal of the petitioners was not being heard by the M.R.T. ( 3 ) wp1807.93 It was the case of the petitioners that the statutory period of limitation of 15 days was to expire within three days at the relevant time and there was every apprehension in the minds of the petitioners that respondent No.2 and their authorities may take possession of the land at any point of time. Therefore, by filing this petition, the petitioners prayed for interim protection till the disposal of the pending appeal before the M.R.T. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court can conveniently dispose of this petition by protecting interest of the petitioners till the appeal is decided by the M.R.T. He further submits that since the M.R.T. is functioning, the petitioners can now prosecute their appeal before the M.R.T. This position is not disputed by the learned A.G.P. appearing for the State. 4. Therefore, in the aforesaid background, in my opinion, the ends of justice would meet if the petition is disposed of with directions to the M.R.T. to dispose of pending appeal expeditiously. However, interest of the ( 4 ) wp1807.93 petitioners is required to be protected till the disposal of the appeal. Therefore, in the result, the petition stands disposed of with direction to the M.R.T. to dispose of the pending appeal of the petitioners, filed on 09.06.1993 expeditiously. Till the appeal is disposed of, the interim relief granted by this Court in terms of prayer clause (B) will continue. Prayer clause (B) reads thus :- “B) The judgment and order passed by the Dy. Collector, Land Record, Jalna, in File No. LR/ICL/CR/2/92 dated 29.05.1993 may please be stayed till the final disposal of appeal pending before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad.” 5. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule made absolute to above extent. 6. This order to be communicated by the Registry to the M.R.T. [S.S. SHINDE,J.] snk/2011/MAR11/wp1807.93