1 aost12293.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER STAMP NO. 12293 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6459 OF 2011 Prakash s/o Hiraman Bhill, Age:40 years, Occ: Labour, R/o.Utaran Gujar Hadda, Tq. Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon and others. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS The District Collector, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon and others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Pramod Gaikwad,Advocate holding for Mr. A.G. Talhar, Advocate for appellants. Mr. D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for State-respondents. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard. 2. I have heard Counsel appearing for the appellants on merits. According to learned Counsel 2 aost12293.11 for the appellants, Civil Court is only competent Court to protect the possession of the appellants. The appellants are cultivating the suit land since 1990 and that is why, accrued some right. Therefore, though the appeal is pending on the relevant date before the Additional Commissioner, Nashik, in order to protect the possession of the appellants over the suit land, the suit was filed. Learned Counsel invited my attention to prayers in the plaint and submitted that, such prayers can be granted by the Civil Court and therefore, jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be ousted in the light of the provisions of Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876. Therefore, according to learned Counsel for the appellants, the Appeal from Order deserves consideration. 3. Learned A.G.P. invited my attention to the provisions of Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 and submitted that, since the appellants herein filed appeal before the 3 aost12293.11 Additional Commissioner and the said appeal has been rejected and the writ petition is pending in which this Court has granted Rule, this Court may not entertain this Appeal from Order. Apart from the above, learned A.G.P. invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State and State authorities and submitted that, the appellants have no right over the suit land. In para-11 of the said affidavit, it is further stated that rightful allottees are given actual possession of the respective piece of land and mutation entry to that effect is also effected. It is further submitted that, the surplus land has to be allotted in accordance with the provisions of Maharashtra Ceiling Act and therefore, relying upon the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents, learned A.G.P. would submit that, the Appeal from Order is devoid of any merits and deserves to be rejected. 4. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the 4 aost12293.11 parties. The 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon while passing the impugned judgment and order has adverted to the provisions of Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act which reads thus : "11. Suits not to be entertained unless plaintiff has exhausted right of appeal. No Civil Court shall entertain any suit against the Government on account of any act or omission of any Revenue Officer unless the plaintiff first proves that previously to bringing his suit, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force as, within the period of limitation allowed for bringing such suits, it was possible to present." 5. It is also not in dispute that, the suit lands are acquired by the Government under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings Act), 1961 and said authorities are bound to distribute the same in accordance with provisions of the said Act, to the beneficiaries. 5 aost12293.11 At the relevant time, when the suit was pending before the Civil Court, the appeal filed by the appellants was pending before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Nashik. The trial Court has rightly observed that unless remedy of appeal is exhausted, suit of the appellants herein, cannot be entertained. It is also not in dispute that, being aggrieved by the rejection of appeal filed by the appellants, by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Nashik, writ petition is filed before this Court, in which this Court has issued Rule. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the appellants herein, is continuation of the proceedings in appeal which are disposed of by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Nashik. 6. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the view taken by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon cannot be said to be unreasonable and not in consonance with the provisions of law. Therefore, I find no substance in the Appeal from Order. 6 aost12293.11 . It is needless to mention that, in Para-8 of the Civil Application No.6458 of 2011 for condonation of delay filed by the appellants reads thus : "8. The appellants say and submit that, all the applicants are the landless persons not having any other land available for them for the purpose of cultivation. Therefore the applicants have found the open peace of lands belonging to the government and therefore the applicants and their family members have started cultivation of the land." . From reading of the abovestated paragraph, it is clear that, the appellants themselves have stated that, they are landless persons. They found the piece of Government land is available. They have started cultivating the said land from 1990 and there is no allotment letter in favour of the appellants or there is no any document of allotment of this land by the 7 aost12293.11 Government to the appellants. Therefore, for all these reasons, I do not find any merits in the Appeal from Order and same stands rejected. . Any observations in the order of this Court or in the order passed by the trial Court would not come in the way of the appellants if otherwise they are entitled for their claim about the suit land, either in the writ petition or if the Government desires to allot the land to the appellants. 7. In the light of rejection of Appeal from Order Stamp No. 12293 of 2011, nothing further survives for consideration in Civil Application No. 6459 of 2011, same stands rejected. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/SEP11