1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.639/2010 Namdeo P. Hadole and othes Vs. Pandurang S. Dhanokar and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S.V. Sohoni, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. C.A. Joshi, Adv. for respondent no.1. Mr. Sonare, AGP for respondents 2 to 4. Mr. A.S. Mardikar, Adv. for respondent no.7. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 5TH JULY, 2010. 1] Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2] The challenge in the present writ petition is to the orders dated 20.12.2008 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Balapur and further order dated 30.9.2009 passed in Revenue Appeal by the Additional Collector, Akola pending adjudication prayer is to stay effect and operation of order dated 10.5.2000 passed by the Tahsildar, Balapur. This Court on 25th February, 2010 while issuing notice for final disposal restrained the respondents from changing user of the land in dispute. 2 3] Advocate Mardikar has pointed out that the petitioners have already filed Civil Suit No. 222/2009 before 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola wherein the order of Tahsildar dated 10.5.2000 is already challenged and declaration that it is void is also claimed. He further states that they sought temporary injunction to stay operation of that order and it was granted on 27.5.2009. The respondents then filed MCA No.62/2009 and District Judge-II allowed that appeal partly on 15.7.2009 and restrained the appellant before it from transferring Plot nos.26 to 32 and 43 till Revenue Appeal is decided. The said judgment was then challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2666/2009 and this Court vide judgment dated 12.8.2009 dismissed the petition and thereafter Letters Patent Appeal No.381/2009 is also dismissed. According to Advocate Mardikar, the relevant facts were thus suppressed while approaching this Court in the matter. He states that the stay order against respondent no.7 was only till the Revenue Appeal was decided and that has been maintained till the stage of Letters Patent Appeal. 3 4] Advocate Sohoni has argued that after adjudication of Revenue Appeal, the petitioner has got remedy of approaching this Court in its writ jurisdiction and hence challenging those orders the present Writ petition is filed. Learned AGP pointed out that remedy of revision available to the petitioner under Section 257 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code has not been exhausted. 5] In the present facts, it is apparent that earlier adjudication was not pointed out to this Court. In this situation, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in the writ jurisdiction. However, the petitioners are at liberty to take such other steps as are open to them in law. With the said liberty, present with petition is disposed of. No costs. 6] Needless to mention that interim orders stand vacated. JUDGE Ambulkar.