1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5358 OF 2008 Sahyandri Krushi Seva Kendra, Buldana, through its Proprietor Shri Digambar s/o Ganpat Korde, aged about 55 years, Occ. Business, R/o Buldana, Tq. Dist. Buldana. - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya Mumbai-32. 2) Maharashtra Krushi Udyog Vikas Mahamandal Maryadit, a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office, Rajan House, 3rd Floor Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 023 through its Managing Director. 3) Maharashtra Krushi Udyog Vikas Mahamandal Maryadit, Paras Building, Near Santoshi Mata Mandir, Damle Chowk, Akola, through its Regional Manager. 4) District Collector, Buldana. 5) The Tahasildar, Tahsil Office, Buldana. - RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Mr. A.J. Thakkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.S. Doifode,AGP for respondent Nos. 1,4 and 5 Mr. Mohd. Parvej, Advocate holding for N.A. Gaikwad for respondent No.3. CORAM:- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ DATED :- 02.09.2009 1. The petitioner is challenging the recovery of alleged dues from him by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as arrears of land revenue under Section 221 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Advocate Mr. Thakkar points out that controversy involved in the present matter is squarely covered by Division Bench Judgment of this Court in 2007 (4) Mh.L.J. 249 (Vidarbha Agro Service Centre, Nandura vs. State of Maharashtra and others). With the assistance of learned counsel for the respective parties, we have perused the judgment. It has been held that the alleged dues recoverable from petitioner by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue as they are not conferred with statues of land revenue. The judgment has been delivered in Writ Petition filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 only. 2. It is therefore, apparent that the issue is squarely covered by said judgment against the respondent No.3. With the result, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) therein. 3 Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE adgokar