1 W.P.No.5985/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5985 OF 2011. Fakira Bapu Pacharne, Age 65 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Chorahala,Tq.Bhokardan, Dist.Jalna. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 2. Additional Collector, Jalna, Dist.Jalna. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-Division, Jalna, Dist. Jalna. 4. Tahsildar, Bhokardan, Dist.Jalna. 5. Mhatarba Vithoba Lokhande, Age major, Occ.Agri., 6. Sakharam Vithoba Lokhande, Age major, Occ.Agri., 7. Shamrao Tukaram Lokhande, Age major, Occ.Agril., 8. Ramdas Laxman Lokhande, Age major, Occ.Agril., 9. Kachru Shamrao Lokhande, 2 W.P.No.5985/11 Age major, Occ.Agril., 10. Bhagwan Sakharam Lokhande, Age major, Occ.Agri., 11. Vishnu Sakharam Lokhande, Age major, Occ.Agril., 12. Shrimant Mhatarji Lokhande, Age major, Occ.Agri., 13. Bhagaji Kachru Lokhande, Age major, Occ.Agril., 14. Kaduba Eknath Pabde, Age major, Occ.Agril., 15. Sheshrao Govinda Pabde, Age major, Occ.Agril., 16. Tejrao Govindrao Pabde, Age major, Occ.Agril., 17. Parmeshwar Sheshrao Pabde, Age major, Occ.Agri., All R/o Chorahala, Tq.Bhokardan, Dist.Jalna. ... Respondents. ... Mr.M.S.Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner Mr.N.H.Borade, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.A.S.Bayas, advocate for Respondent Nos.5 to 17. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 17.08.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 3 W.P.No.5985/11 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The present Respondent Nos.5 to 17 filed an application before Respondent No.4 purportedly U/s 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The Respondent No.4 Tahsildar allowed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present petitioner preferred appeal before the Respondent No.3 Sub-Divisional Officer. The petitioner also moved an application for interim relief seeking stay of the order of Tahsildar. The Respondent No.3 Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order of statusquo. The appeal before Sub- Divisional Officer is still pending. Aggrieved by an order of Sub-Divisional Officer, granting statusquo, the present Respondent Nos.5 to 17 preferred appeal before the Respondent NO.2 Additional Collector. The Respondent No.2 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of statusquo. The present petitioner thereafter filed revision before the Respondent No.1, who dismissed the said revision. Aggrieved thereby, 4 W.P.No.5985/11 the present petition is filed. 4. The appeal before the Respondent NO.3 Sub-Divisional Officer is still pending. It is submitted that the order of statusquo was in operation. Mr.Bayas, learned counsel submits that the Additional Collector and Commissioner have concurrently negatived the contention of the petitioner. The Tahsildar after resorting to all the legal procedure had allowed application filed by the present Respondents. The said order need not be interfered with. 5. The appeal was filed before the Sub- Divisional Officer by the petitioner. The said appeal is still pending. The interim orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer i.e. of statusquo could not have been a subject matter of appeal in view of bar engrafted U/s 252 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. When the order passed by the Additional Collector itself was without jurisdiction, the same would be judgment "Coram non-judice" and would be nullity, interalia, the further proceedings also would be 5 W.P.No.5985/11 nullity. In view of the same, the judgments of the Additional Collector and the Commissioner will have to be ignored and the order of statusquo would still be in force. 6. In view of the above, the orders impugned are quashed and set aside and the order of statusquo passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalna is confirmed. The appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer is pending since April 2011. The Sub-Divisional Officer shall decide the said appeal expeditiously and preferably within a period of three (3) months from today, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties. The parties shall appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 29.8.2011. 7. Rule made absolute accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 7. Needless to state that I have not observed anything on merits of the matter. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp598511 6 W.P.No.5985/11