1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1191 OF 2008 (Kamladevi wd/o Satyanarayan Bhoot vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. MARCH 12, 2009. I have heard Shri Joharapurkar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Kankale, leaned AGP for the respondents on last few dates and thereafter it was felt that the appellant- plaintiff has some urgency in the matter because he wanted to prepare a lay out on his field and sale the plots in the market. Shri Joharapurkar, learned counsel contended that as yet there is no non-agricultural development and still NA assessment has been levied and revised from time to time ignoring the contentions. He wants to produce a document on record to show that even today, the Municipal Council has not sanctioned the development because the revenue authorities have yet not signed the necessary papers and granted clearance to the appellant. He states that when proceedings were 2 pending before the Collector, the Collector has decided the controversy behind the back of the appellant. According to him, in such circumstances, Section 11 of Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, which prescribes a bar will not be applicable. The learned AGP on the other hand contends that the assessment has been done in accordance with law and its validity not only on facts but also on law can be challenged in appeals provided under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. He states that Section 11 of Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, only postpones the approach to Civil Court till the revenue authorities had applied their mind in all appeals and revision, if any. After hearing parties, I find that the appellant/ plaintiff will not get any immediate relief if present controversy is decided on merits in his favour and Civil Suit is restored. Though Shri Joharapurkar, learned counsel is not very much willing for that and he wanted the first appeal to be kept pending, I also do not find any propriety in keeping first appeal pending. All controversies being raised by the appellant can be considered by the Collector, Yavatmal, who passed the last order on 16.5.2005. It is to be noticed that the proceedings 3 were fixed by said authority on 15.4.2005 and as his counsel did not remain present, ultimately the Collector has decided the appeal in accordance with records. The learned AGP has produced the records and shows to this Court the order dated 16.5.2005. In the circumstances, the appellant is directed to deposit with the office of Collector, an amount of Rs. One lakh provisionally by 15.4.2009 without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the matter only to show his bonafides. If the amount is so deposited, the Collector shall restore proceedings in Revenue Appeal No. 2/NAP/34- 2004/2005 back to his file and shall thereafter proceed to hear the appellant and pass appropriate orders as early as possible and in any case by 29th May 2009. It is made clear that the contentions raised by Shri Joharapurkar, learned counsel for the appellant are not considered on merits, considering the urgency of the matter and all the points are kept open for consideration at appropriate stage. First Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.