1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3572 OF 2007. Tulshiram S/o Vishwanath Baglane ... Petitioner. Versus Mohd.Nazeeruddin alias Abdul Nazaruddin Siddiqui S/o Rizwanuddin Siddiqui died through L.Rs. 1-A Mohd. Mujahed Nazeeruddin Siddiqui and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.P.D.Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.V.Tele, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr.S.A.Qureshi, advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1A to 1C. Mr.S.G.Chapalgaonkar, advocate for Respondent Nos.2A and 2C. Respondent Nos.2A to 2D, 2F, 2G and 2I served. ... CORAM :V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date :09.06.2009 PER COURT 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The petitioner claims to be tenant of 2 the land in question. According to him, he and the Respondent No.2 were the tenants in common over the land bearing S.No.95/1. The land was Madadmash inam and was abolished. In the year 1961, the petitioner and the Respondents were granted occupancy rights. They deposited the occupancy rights and became statutory owners of the suit land. The petitioner avers that subsequently the land was divided between himself and the Respondent No.2 and thereafter he became exclusive owner of land S.No.95/1 admeasuring 6 acres 31 gunthas, whereas the Respondent No.2 became owner of land S.No.95/1 to the extent of 6 acres 36 gunthas. His case is that after about 25 years, the Respondent Nos.1A to 1C gave an application seeking right to possess the suit land. His application was dismissed by the Deputy Collector (L.R.). The deceased Respondent No.1 had preferred a Revision Application which was heard by the Hon'ble Minister and remanded the matter for afresh hearing and reconsideration of the record. 3. The Hon'ble Minister has observed that 3 deceased Respondent No.1 was not heard. It has been observed further that no opportunity was given to the deceased Respondent No.1 to establish his right of succession vis-a-vis the original holder of the suit property, namely, Shaikh Abdul Nasiruddin. 4. Mr.Suryawanshi, would submit that this is for the third time that the matter is required to be considered by the Deputy Collector (L.R.) and there was thorough inquiry already made. The grant of opportunity to the deceased Respondent No.1 could not be faulted with. The inquiry should have been conducted appropriately after giving due opportunity to the deceased Respondent No.1 in order to explain right of succession. There is nothing perverse as such in the impugned order. Considering these aspects, the impugned order need not be interfered with in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, the Hon'ble Minister shall 4 avoid any further remand if the Revisional jurisdiction is invoked after the afresh decision rendered by the Deputy Collector (L.R.). (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp357207