1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.623 OF 1991. 1. Sk.Babumiya S/o Karimbhai deceased through his legal heirs : 1A) Shaikh Sujatabi W/o Sk. Babumiya, Age 52 years, Occ.Household, R/o Pimpalwadi, (Pirachi), Tq.Paithan, District Aurangabad. 1B) Shaikh Munir S/o Sk. Babumiya, Age 40 years, Occ.Labour, R/o as above. 1C) Shaikh Riyaz S/o Shaikh Babumiya, Age 35 years, Occ.Labour work, R/o as above. 1D) Shaikh Fayyaz S/o Sk. Babumiya, Age 26 years, Occ. Labour work, R/o As above. 2) Begumbee W/o Karimbhai, Age major, Occ.and R/o as above. 3) Sk.Bashir S/o Karimbhai deceased through his L.Rs. 3A) Madinabee W/o Shaikh Basheer, Age 40 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o Pimpalwadi (Pirachi), Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. 3B) Shaikh Shabbir S/o Shaikh 2 Bashir, Age 30 years, Occ. Labour work, R/o as above. 3C) Shaikh Wajir S/o Shaikh Bashir, Age 25 years, Occ. Labour work, R/o as above. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Mohd.Hussen Munshi S/o Sk.Chand, Age major, Occ. Agri., R/o Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. 3. Bhanudas S/o Dada Rajale (died) her L.Rs. i) Thakubai W/o Bhanudas Rajale, Age 50 years, Occ.Household, R/o Takli (Dhangaon) Post Dhorkin, Tq.Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. ii) Vithal S/o Bhanudas Rajale, Age 16 years, Occ.Nil Minor, u/g of mother. iii) Ashok S/o Bhanudas Rajale, Age 13 years Minor under guardianship of mother. iv) Babasaheb S/o Banudas Rajale, Age 11 years, Minor u/g of mother. ii to iv are minors and are under the guardianship of real mother 3(i) Thakubai and all are resident of village Takli Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. 4) Bhanudas S/o Natha (Died) his L.Rs. i) Dhondabai W/o Bhanudas Kodkar, Age 62 years, Occ.Household, 3 R/o village Pimpalwadi, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. ii) Vithal S/o Bhanudas Kodkar, Age 45 years, Occ.Agril., R/o as above. iii) Shridhar S/o Bhanudas Kodkar, Age 35 years, Occ. R/o as above. iv) Kachru S/o Bhanudas Kodkar, Age 28 years, Occ.R/o as above. v) Subhash S/o Bhanudas Kodkar, Age 23 years, Occ.R/o as above. 5) Kashinath S/o Natha, Age major, Occ. R/o as above. 6) Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, through Registrar, M.R.T. Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.B.R.Kedar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.G.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 18.06.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. On the last date, the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader was directed to inquire about the present status of the proceedings pursuant to the 4 orders of the remand dated 20.6.1990 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The learned Asstt.Govt. Pleader has stated that the said record is not traceable at present. As such the matter is heard finally. 2. The present petitioners take exception to the order dated 20.6.1990 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Case No.84/B/89-A, by virtue of which the Tribunal had partly allowed the Revision and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh inquiry on the points as enumerated in the said judgment. The State of Maharashtra had initiated suo-motu proceedings U/s 98-C of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in respect of the land S.No.105 admeasuring 23 acres 28 gunthas situated at village Isarwadi, Taluka and District Aurangabad. The Additional Tahsildar, rejected the application of the present petitioner herein for possession and the non-applicants Nos.2 and 3 therein were allowed to retain the possession. Against that the present petitioners had preferred appeal before the Dy.Collector Land 5 Reforms, Aurangabad. The said appeal came to be allowed and against that the present Respondents preferred revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. While dealing with the said revision, the Tribunal has observed that though it is held by the lower authority that the Respondent No.3 therein i.e. the present petitioners were protected tenants and declared statutory owners still no such certificates are produced on record nor any record to show that Revision Petitioners were declared owners as both the parties had failed to produce the documents on record nor there is any oral evidence to that effect, with view to afford proper opportunity to both the parties, the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar. 3. From the record, it nowhere transpires that the parties have produced the certificates on which they were relying nor any oral evidence has been adduced. The said order of remand was with a view to afford opportunity to the parties. The said order is passed in the year 1990. When the present Writ Petition is admitted, this Court 6 had not stayed the order of the Tribunal or the proceedings which were directed to be conducted by the Tahsildar pursuant to the order of remand. 4. In light of the above, there is no case for interference. However, as the present position is not known to any of the parties, I direct the Tahsildar, Paithan, to decide the proceedings if not already decided within a period of six (6) months from today. Rule discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp623991