1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.225 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6352 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12507 OF 2009 Kausabai Sampat Nade and others ... APPELLANTS VERSUS Ravindrakumar Champalal Khivansara and others ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri A.V. Patil, Advocate holding for Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the appellants. ..... CORAM : S.B. DESHMUKH AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 1st December, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. We heard learned counsel Ne, A,V. Patil for the appellants/ applicants. 2. Appellants challenge the order dated 15.10.2009 passed by learned Single Bench of this Court in Civil 2 Application No.10957/2009 in Writ Petition No.6352/2009. It is not in dispute that the appellants (writ petitioners), had filed Case No.2004LR/TNC/A/11 in the Court of learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad under Section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950 for short). This judgment and order passed by learned Deputy Collector (Page 82) shows that said application under Section 98 filed by the present appellants/ petitioners, was pertaining to land Survey No.61, admeasuring 10 acres, situate at village Garkheda, Taluka and District Aurangabad. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that original Survey No.61, has been subsequently subdivided in various subdivisions. The learned Deputy Collector, decided Case No. 2004LR/TNC/A/11 on 12.7.2005 and dismissed the said application filed by the appellants/ petitioners under Section 98 of the Act of 1950. The order passed by learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms was challenged by filing revision application under Section 90 of the Act, 1950 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which was delayed and, therefore, came to be dismissed. Said order was subject matter of Writ Petition No.6352/2009. Initially, learned Single Bench of this Court issued Rule and interim relief in terms of prayer clause (B) by order dated 24.4.2009. It is after this order the original respondent No.1 filed Civil 3 Application, for vacating interim relief granted by learned Single Bench in absence of the applicants. The learned Single Bench heard the parties. Two reasons have been recorded by learned Single Bench for allowing the Civil Application and vacating the interim relief granted by the order passed on 24.9.2009. First reason, noticed from the order passed by the learned Single Bench (Paragraph no.5) is a specific statement made by the applicant (original respondent) that he is not owner in respect of the suit property i.e. Survey No.61/2 and 65/1. Second ground weighed with learned Single Bench seems to be that there was no ad-interim or interim relief or injunction granted against the respondents in a Writ Petition by two authorities. Learned Single Bench has further observed that, for the first time ad-interim relief is granted by the learned Single Bench by the order passed on 24.9.2009. 3. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the appellants/ applicants relies on the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Yuvaraj Kale Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2008 (1) Mah. L.R. 123. It was intra-Court appeal before the learned Division Bench of this Court, wherein order passed by learned Single Bench of this Court on 11.9.2007 in Writ Petition No.3849/2007 was challenged. Mr. Patil points out that in that Writ Petition 4 also rule was issued by learned Single Bench. However, learned Single Bench declined or was not inclined to grant any interim relief and according to Mr. Patil, further similarity of the fact is that in that case also ad-interim relief granted earlier was vacated by the learned Singe Bench. That is how intra-Court appeal was before the learned Division Bench. The learned Division Bench recorded the factual matrix, appearing in that proceedings, in paragraph No.3 of the report. It is a case of election of Sarpanch, under the provisions of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. Carefully we have considered the facts of the reported judgment. The High Court, apart from the provisions and powers flowing from the Code of Civil Procedure, may exercise constitutional powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India while considering interim relief and/or issuance of writ or direction. In the case on hand, learned Single Bench specifically recorded two grounds, which we have referred to above. The ratio of the judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Yuvraj (supra), in our view, does not help to the appellants/ applicants. Another reason is that so far as the Act of 1950 is concerned, said Act has taken care of various contingencies that alienation of the agricultural land without seeking permission from the competent authority, alienation of the land by the person 5 claiming a status as landlord etc., in view of the provisions of the Act of 1950, in our view, no case for interference under letters patent jurisdiction is established. 4. Intra-Court Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. 5. In view of the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application No.12507/2009 does not survive and stands disposed of. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (S.B. DESHMUKH, J.) fmp/lpa225.09