( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 601 OF 2009 Syed Khaliluddin s/o. Syed Sharifoddin .. Petitioners and ors. Versus Syed Kalimoddin s/o. Abdul Razzaq and ors. .. Respondents Shri M.V. Deshpande h/f. Shri M.D. Narwadkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri S.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri M.N. Kamble, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for respondent No.6. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 28.01.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri M.V. Deshpande h/f. Adv. Shri M.D. Narwadkar for the petitioners, Adv. Shri S.P. Deshmukh for respondent No. 1 and 2, Adv. Shri M.N. Kamble for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and A.P.P. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi for respondent ( 2 ) No.6. 2. By this writ petition the petitioners are challenging para 2 of the order passed by the District Judge-1, Parbhani in judgment in Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2007 decided on 15.05.2009, which is as follows :- “1. The revision petition is partly allowed. 2. The findings of the Tahsildar that party no.1 was found in possession of the suit property at the time of police report of the year 1997 is set aside. 3. The order of trial Court that the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be dropped is upheld. 4. The proceeding has been rightly dropped.” 3. The learned advocate Shri Deshpande pointed out to me final order passed by the Acting Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Pathri in Proceeding No. 97/MAG/CR/420/ Cr.P.C./145 decided on 26.02.2008. The Tahsildar by his ( 3 ) judgment and order has held that the prayer by the Police Station, Pathri for taking over possession of Gat No. 45 (Survey No.28) of village Jaitapurwadi by report dated 03.07.1997 was rejected and the matter was closed after informing the parties. It is argued by Adv. Shri Deshpande that Revisional Court has wrongly considered observations made in the body of the judgment by Tahsildar ignoring final order wherein the Court refused to take over possession of land in question. 4. At this stage the learned advocates for the parties have submitted before this Court that the parties have already filed civil proceedings and now two Letters Patent Appeals are pending in this Court and rights of the parties are being decided in said proceedings. 5. After considering judgment of the Tahsildar, in my opinion, whatever he has observed in the body of the judgment are mere observations which did not reflect in the final order, so the parties should abide by the decision/s of Single Bench of this Court, which is subject matter of the Letter Patent Appeals, subject to further interim orders that ( 4 ) are passed in the said Letters Patent Appeals. 6. With these observations the writ petition stands disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/JAN10/crwp601.09