1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1129 OF 2009 Eknath Bhagchand Gondkar ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others ....Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1130 OF 2009 Sau. Narsabai Baburao Karade ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1131 OF 2009 Shri. DyandeoBhagchand Gondkar ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others ....Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1132 OF 2009 Shri. Saibaba Vishwa Dharmalaya Trust, Shirdi ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others ....Respondents. 2 Shri. R.S. Patil Adv. h/f. Shri. Y.S.Choudhari, Advocate for the petitioners in all petitions. Shri.K.S.Patil, A.G.P. for the respondents in all petitions. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 18th JUNE, 2009 PER COURT : 1. Though the matters have been specifically circulated on today's board, adjournment is sought on the ground that the learned counsel for petitioners is suffering from illness and has left to Shirdi for his medical treatment. 2. When the matter is circulated and that to at the convenience of counsel, it is the duty of the counsel, either to address the court or to make alternate arrangement if there is some genuine reason. Since the matter is circulated, I am inclined to dispose of the said matter on merits instead of dismissing in default. 3. The present petitioners have challenged the concurrent findings on facts arrived at by Tahsildar, Rahata, thereby directing the payment of penalty against the petitioners, since they had used the agricultural land for non agricultural purpose without permission of competent authority and order passed by the learned Additional Collector, thereby dismissing 3 the appeal and the order passed by Additional Collector dismissing revision. 4. The authorities have concurrently found that the petitioners have used the agricultural land for non agricultural purposes without seeking requisite permission from the competent authority. In that view of the matter, no infirmity could be found with the approach adopted by the Tahsildar, Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner imposing penalty on the petitioner. No interference is warranted in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. [ B.R. GAVAI, J. ] ssc/wp1129.09