1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2208/2007 Prakash Madhavdas Heda ..vs.. The Sub Divisional Officer, Saoner and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 27 th March, 2008 1. Heard Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Khubalkar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 and Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. None appears for respondent No. 4, though served. 2. The petitioner by filing this petition challenges legality and propriety of the order dated 09.05.2007 passed by respondent No.5-Additional Collector, Nagpur refusing to extend the stay. 3. The suit property, viz. Survey No. 9 Ketapar Kalmeshwar, was allegedly relinquished by respondent No. 3 in favour of respondent No. 4 in the year 1986 and the 2 mutation entry was also effected. The contention of respondent No. 3 is that this mutation entry was effected without giving any notice to her. In the year 1993, the petitioner purchased this property bearing survey No. 9 area 2.28 Hectares, Ketapar, Kalmeshwar (hereinafter referred to as the “Suit Land”) by registered sale deed dated 20.04.1993. Respondent No. 3, thereafter, challenged the mutation entry effected in the year 1986 in pursuance of the alleged relinquishment deed before respondent No. 1-Sub Divisional Officer, Saoner. The Sub Divisional Officer set aside the mutation entry in favour of respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4, thereafter, preferred appeal before respondent No. 5- Additional Collector and the petitioner intervened in this appeal. Respondent No. 5-Additional Collector dismissed the appeal and, thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner, after hearing both the sides remanded the matter back to respondent No. 1-Sub Divisional Officer by 3 order dated 20.09.2004 for fresh disposal on merit after giving opportunity to both the parties. The Sub Divisional Officer, after hearing parties afresh, held in favour of respondent No. 3 and cancelled the mutation entry effected in the year 1986 in favour of respondent No. 4. This order was passed on 29.01.2007. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the Additional Collector by way of appeal. Respondent No.5-Additional Collector, initially granted ex parte stay till receipt of the record from the lower Court. The petitioner after receipt of the record, applied for extension of stay, however, by passing the impugned order, the Collector refused the extension of stay. Since, the Collector refused to extend the stay, the respondent No. 3 approached Tahsildar for demarcation of the suit land and on this application, Tahsildar issued notice to the petitioner. The present writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Additional Collector dated 09.05.2007, whereby extension of stay was refused. 4 4. The petition was placed for orders on 22.05.2007. This Court issued notice before admission and granted stay to the above said notice issued by Tahsildar on 18.05.2007. 5. The above order of the High Court, which was passed on 22.05.2007 is in operation till today. Without going into the rival contention of the parties and merits of the matter, the learned counsel submit that since the matter is sub judice before the Additional Collector, the direction can be given to him for early disposal of the petitioner's appeal and in the meanwhile keeping order dated 22.05.2007 passed in this Court in operation. 6. In view of this agreement amongst the learned counsel for the respective parties and in the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I dispose of the petition by passing the following order. (i) Respondent No. 5-Additional Collector is directed to hear and dispose of the petitioner's appeal No. 94/RTS- 5 59/06-07 as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. (ii) During the pendency and final disposal of the petitioner's aforesaid appeal, order dated 22.05.2007 passed in the present writ petition shall remain in operation. (iii) Respondent No. 5-Additional Collector shall decide the petitioner's appeal independently on its own merits and without being influenced by the present order. (iv) The learned counsel for the respective parties agree that they will cooperate the learned Additional Collector for early disposal of the appeal and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. JUDGE kahale