1 wp-2322-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY srj CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2322 OF 2011 Mr.Ramkrushna T. Lagad .. Petitioner. V/s. Mr. Punja G. Gavali & Others .. Respondents. Mr. S.G.Karandikar, for the Petitioner. Mr. Prashant D. Patil, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATE : 24rd MARCH, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner and Respondent makes a statement that Petitioner and Respondent No.1 and 2 are personally present in the matter. 3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner submits that this dispute pertains to the agricultural lands bearing Gat No. 225, admeasuring 7 Hector 86 R situated at Vinchur-Gavali, Taluka 2 wp-2322-11.sxw and District Nashik. The Petitioner filed Tenancy Case No.1 of 2000 in the Court of Tahsildar, Nashik under section 32 – O & P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 in the capacity of landlord for the suit land. He submitted that the Tahsildar vide its order dated 6 th January, 2003 held that Petitioner is the owner of the suit land and further directed to evict the Respondent/tenant from the suit land and restore the possession of the suit land to the Petitioner. 4 Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 6 th January, 2003 passed by the Tahsildar in Tenancy Case No.1 of 2000, the Respondent preferred Tenancy Appeal No.4 of 2003 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-Division Nashik at Nashik. The Sub- Divisional Officer vide order dated 3 rd January, 2004 set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar in Tenancy Case No.1 of 2000 and further directed to take appropriate steps according to section 32-K and fix the price of the suit land. 5 Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Nashik, Petitioner preferred Tenancy Revision No.9 of 2004 before the Revenue Commissioner Nashik, at Nashik. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that during pendency of the said revision, both the parties settled the matter in the month of January, 2010. However, they are unable to 3 wp-2322-11.sxw file consent terms, because, post of Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay is vacant since long and no new Member is appointed till date. 6 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties tendered consent terms dated 17 th March, 2011 duly signed by all the parties. Same is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification. 7 Writ Petition is allowed in terms of consent terms. 8 Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (K.K.TATED, J.)