(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10868 OF 2010 Santosh s/o. Asaram Dhawale, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Agriculture & Business, R/o. Dhopteshwar, at present, Dargaves, Near Rajmahal Cinema Talkies, Kadrabad, Jalna, Taluka and District : Jalna. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Tahsildar Revenue, Badnapur, Taluka : Badnapur, District : Jalna. 2. Deputy Collector Revenue, Jalna. 3. Additional Collector Revenue, Jalna. 4. Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, Revenue Department, Aurangabad. 5. Kundlik s/o. Dagadu Dabhade, Age : 44 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Dhopteshwar, Taluka : Badnapur, District : Jalna. (2) 6. The State of Maharashtra, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. N.R. Solunke, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 4 and 6. Mr. G.G. Suryawanshi, Advocate, for respondent no.5. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15TH MARCH 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. N.R. Solunke, appearing for the petitioner; learned AGP Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4 and 6, and Adv. Mr. G.G. Suryawanshi, appearing for respondent no.5. 2. Contention of Adv. Mr. Solunke is, challenge to (3) mutation entry taken in 2001 before Tahsildar on 1-7-2008 is itself time barred. He further states that the appeal filed before Deputy Collector was also not within limitation. According to him, though these grounds are specifically raised, the same have not been looked into by any of the authorities and the revisional authority has on erroneous grounds refused to grant interim relief. 3. Adv. Mr. G.G. Suryawanshi, for respondent no.5, invites attention to prayer clauses in the petition to urge that the petition itself is misconceived. According to him, at the most, Additional Commissioner can be asked to decide the pending revision on merits at the earliest. 4. Learned AGP Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, for respondent nos.1 to 4 and 6, supports the impugned order. According to him, as there is no jurisdictional error or perversity, this Court should not interfere. Without prejudice to his contentions, he states that if any time bound disposal is being directed, time of six months should be given to the Additional Commissioner. 5. After hearing respective Counsel, I find that this Court while issuing notice in the matter on 13-12-2010, has directed parties to maintain status quo in relation to possession. (4) 6. It will be appropriate to continue that order for a further period of three months and to direct respondent no.4 / Additional Commissioner to decide pending revision before him in the meanwhile on merits. 7. Hence I pass the following order : (i) The respondent no.4 / Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, is directed to decide the revision filed by the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of appearance of parties before him. (ii) Parties are directed to appear before the Additional Divisional Commissioner on 5th April 2011 and to abide by his further instructions in the matter. (iii) Till the revision is decided by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, interim order granted by this Court on 13-12-2010 shall continue. 8. With these directions, the petition is disposed of. No costs. (5) 9. Authenticated copy of this order be supplied to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, as per his request. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10868