1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1273 OF 2010 (Kedarnath Gangadhar Agrawal & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. MARCH 17, 2010. Heard Shri Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Kankale, learned AGP for the respondents. Considering the nature of controversy, writ petition is heard finally by rejecting request of learned AGP to grant him time to obtain instructions. The petitioners state that against the adverse order dated 29.12.2009, an appeal under Section 247 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is filed before Respondent No. 3 and in that appeal records and proceedings from the office of Respondent No. 2 – Collector were summoned by 22.02.2010. In spite of this, on 26.02.2010, a notice for recovery of amount of Rs.5,22,588/- on account of unearned income has been served upon the petitioner. When the petitioner approached the appellate authority making grievance about this demand, that authority has refused to consider the request for interim relief pointing out that it is yet to receive the records. 2 Attention of Court is also invited to findings recorded in the order dated 30.03.2009 in Writ Petition No. 4758 of 2008 in pursuance to which Respondent No. 2 – Collector has passed the impugned order on 29.12.2009 as also to observations of Division Bench about permissibility of such demand of unearned income made in the case of Jaikumari Amarbahadursingh & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported at 2009 (2) AIR Bom. R. 745, particularly para 43 at page 768. The contention of the petitioner is, there is no clause in agreement dated 24.12.1970 enabling the respondent to alter or modify its terms and conditions. Though the learned AGP is seeking time to verify the facts and file appropriate reply, as I find that the petitioners have already approached the appellate authority, the right course for the petitioners is to move appropriate application before that authority. The appellate authority viz., Respondent No. 3 cannot refuse to entertain the application in such circumstances merely because it has not received the records. According to learned AGP, the reasons for refusal being communicated to this Court by the petitioners may not be correct. However, it is not necessary for this Court to record any finding in this respect. The petitioners are permitted to move appropriate application pointing out all these facts and order of this Court before Respondent No. 3 by 30th March 2010. 3 If such an application is moved, whether records are received or not by it, Respondent No. 3 shall pass appropriate orders on that application after hearing the petitioners within one week thereafter. Till the appellate authority viz., Respondent No. 3 considers the application moved by present petitioners, stay of coercive recovery in response to notices dated 26th February 2010 at annexure “M” with the petition. With these directions, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Certified copy expedited. JUDGE *GS.