1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2244 OF 2010 Bansilal Chotu Gawali ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- Sub-Divisional Officer and others. ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr.M.V. Deshpande, advocate for petitioner. Mr.S.V. Kurundkar, Addl.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.S.S. Rathi, advocate for respondent no.3. ........ WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2245 OF 2010 Bansilal Chotu Gawali ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- Sub-Divisional Officer and others. ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr.M.V. Deshpande, advocate for petitioner. Mr.S.V. Kurundkar, Addl.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.S.V.Chandole, advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4. ........ WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2246 OF 2010 Bansilal Chotu Gawali ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- Sub-Divisional Officer and others. ..RESPONDENTS 2 ......... Mr.M.V. Deshpande, advocate for petitioner. Mr.S.V. Kurundkar, Addl.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.S.P. Deshmukh, advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4. ........ WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3175 OF 2006 Badrinarayan Govindprasad Dhoot and others. ..PETITIONERS -VERSUS- Bansilal Chotu Gewali and others. ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr.P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel holding for Mr.S.V. Chandole, advocate for petitioners. Mr.M.V. Deshpande, advocate for respondent no.1. Mr.S.V. Kurundkar, Addl.G.P. for respondent nos.11 to 14. ........ WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3367 OF 2006 Mahesh Seva Samiti ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- Bansilal Chotu Gawali and others. ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr.R.N. Dhorde, advocate for petitioner. Mr.S.V. Kurndkar, Addl.G.P. for respondent nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Mr.P.G. Godhangaonkar, advocate for respondent no.4. ........ WITH 3 WRIT PETITION NO.4556 OF 2006 Shankarlal Jamnallal Dhoot and another. ..PETITIONERS -VERSUS- Bansilal Chotu Gawali and others. ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr.S.P. Deshmukh, advocate for petitioners. Mr.S.V. Kurndkar, Addl.G.P. for respondent nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Mr.M.V. Deshpande, advocate for respondent no.1. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 4 th August, 2010. PER COURT : 1. All these petitions are being disposed of together in as much as the main issue regarding declaration of statutory tenancy right in favour of the alleged tenant i.e. Bansilal Chotu Gawali is commonly involved. 2. It is not necessary to set out rival contentions and pleadings of the parties. 3. The impugned judgment, which is being challenged in these Writ Petitions is rendered by learned Deputy Collector, Nanded on 16th August, 2006. By that judgment, the appeals preferred against the judgment of the Tahsildar, Nanded on 4 18.01.2006 came to be dismissed. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the learned A.G.P., it is amply clear that efficacious alternate remedy is available to the petitioners. It is pointed out by learned counsel Mr.Deshpande that Mahesh Seva Samiti had preferred Revision applications before the learned Divisional Commissioner but it was withdrawn during pendency of the Petition. 5. Counsel for Mahesh Seva Samiti and other petitioners, who are claiming to be purchasers of the land in question, would submit that at the relevant time the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was not available because it was abolished and jurisdiction was assigned to the Divisional Commissioner. They thought it fit to get the issue adjudicated from the independent judicial authority instead of going to Revenue Authority, and therefore, withdrawal was effected. 6. It is undisputed that now the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is established and independent judicial authorities are manning the same. On account of such subsequent development, the petitioners are ready to go before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal so as to invoke the revisional jurisdiction available to the 5 said Tribunal. The petitioners will be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in order to challenge the judgment of the learned Additional Collector, Nanded. Earlier withdrawal of the revision application filed before the learned Divisional Commissioner shall not however be considered as legal impediment while considering the revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and delay if any may be considered under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 7. In view of the available efficacious, alternate remedy, all the Petitions are disposed of with further observation that the status-quo position shall be maintained for four weeks henceforth and in the meanwhile, the petitioners may avail the alternate remedy as available under the Law. The Petitions are disposed of accordingly. 8. Mr.Murar Deshpande submits that the observations that such withdrawal of the Revision Application before the learned Divisional Commissioner may not be considered as legal impediment while entertaining the Petitions before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal may be deleted from the order. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal may consider the issue independently but unless 6 the withdrawal is shown to be with some ulterior motive, impediment may be treated as de-clamped. 9. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition itself, nothing survive in Civil Application No.4 of 2008, hence same shall stand disposed of accordingly. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp2244.10