1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2855/2009 (Narendra J. Morwan & ors. Vs. Collector, Buldhana & anr.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 13 , 2009 . Heard Shri Sambre for the petitioners, and Shri D.B. Patel, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that by the impugned order dated 9/7/2009, the petitioners were asked to remove the alleged encroachment, within a period of four days from the receipt of the notice dated 9/7/2009. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Collector under the provisions of Section 50 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, is appellable under the provisions of Section 55 of the Code of 1966. The learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that by the impugned order dated 9/7/2009, the petitioners were directed to remove the alleged encroachment within a period of four days, thereby depriving the petitioners of their right to file an appeal and then a revision against the order under Sub-section (1) or (3) of Section 50 of the Code of 1966. The 2 learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would also not be entitled to avail the provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 50 of the Code of 1966 in case the order passed by the authority on 9/7/2009 is implemented. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners are ready to approach the appellate authority in case the petitioners are protected for a period of three weeks. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners had no other alternative, but to approach this Court by filing the instant petition as it is clearly mentioned in the impugned order dated 9/7/2009 that the said order was passed in view of the communication issued by the Collector on 29/6/2009, to the Naib Tahsildar, Chikhali. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy for challenging the impugned order dated 9/7/2009, though the said remedy could not have been availed at the time of filing of the petition in view of the contents of para 6 of the impugned order wherein it is observed by the Naib Tahsildar that the Collector had issued a communication on 29/6/2009 directing the removal of the encroachment. A statement is also made on behalf of the petitioners that they would not open the shops on the disputed site on 16/7/2009 and 17/7/2009, and would not conduct any business therein on those days, in view 3 of the visit of Her Excellency The President of India to Chikhali on 17/7/2009. The petitioners are permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file the proceedings under the provisions of Section 50 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, before the appellate authority. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 9/7/2009 is stayed for a period of three weeks only on the condition that the petitioners would not open their shops and conduct any business in the said premises on 16/7/2009 and 17/7/2009. The writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP