1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5407 OF 2008 1. Dinkar S/o.Raosaheb Waware, Age-57 years, occu-Agri. R/o.Antarwali (Bk.) Tal.Georai, Dist. Beed. 2. Indubai W/o.Dinkarrao Wawre, Age-52 years, Occu-Agri. R/o.Antarwali (Bk.) Tal.Georai, Dist.Beed. 3. Vasantrao S/o.Govindrao Wawre, Age-52 years, Occu-Agri. R/o.Antarwali (Bk.) Tal.Georai, Dist.Beed 4. Shantabai W/o.Govindrao Wawre, Age-60 years, Occu-Agri. R/o. Antarwali (Bk.) Tal.Georai, Dist : Beed 5. Prabhakarrao S/o.Raosaheb Wawre, Age-55 years, Occu-Agri. R/o.Antarwali (Bk.), Tal.Georai, Dist.Beed 6. Chetan S/o. Dinkarrao Wawre Age-30 years, Occu-Agril. R/o.Antarwali (Bk.) Tal.Georai, Dist : Beed PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. 2 2. The Tahsildar, Georai, Tal.Georai, Dist.Beed 3. Bhalchandra S/o.Laxman Avdhal, Age-62 years, Occu-Agri., R/o.Antarwali (Bk.) Tal.Georai, Dist.Beed 4. Limbaji S/o.Nanarao Kadam, Age-63 years, Occu-Agril. R/o.Antarwali (Bk.), Tal.Georai, Dist.Beed 5. Sanjay S/o.Limbaji Kadam, Age-38 years, Occu-Agril. R/o.Antarwali (Bk.) Tal.Georai, Dist : Beed. 6. Deepak S/o.Limbaji Kadam, Age-36 years, Occu-Agril. R/o.Antarwali (Bk.) Tal.Georai, Dist.Beed 7. Sudhir S/o.Limbaji Kadam, Age-33 years, Occu-Agril. R/o.Antarwali (Bk.) Tal.Georai, Dist.Beed 8. Prakash S/o.Sopan Keskar, Age/35 years, Occu-Agril. R/o.Pangulgaon, Tal.Georai, Dist.Beed 9. Ram S/o.Vaijnath Vharkate, Age-30 years, Occu-Agril. R/o.Pangulgaon, Tal.Georai, Dist.Beed 10. Dnyaneshwar S/o.Vaijnath Vharkate, Age-25 years, Occu-Agril. R/o.Pangulgaon, Tal.Georai, Dist.Beed RESPONDENTS Mr.S.S.Tope, advocate for petitioners Mr.K.B.Chaudhary, advocate for respondent no.1 and 2 Mr.D.P.Palodkar, advocate for respondent no.3 to 10 3 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 12/06/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By the present writ petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Learned Tahsildar Gevrai, dated 07/08/2008. 2. Rule. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith. 4. It appears from the contents of the petition that on the application moved before the Tahsildar, Gevrai by the respondent no. 3 to 10 u/s. 143 of The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code by the respondents herein, after following or complying the requisite procedure, the said application was rejected by the learned Tahsildar against which the respondent no.3 to 10 preferred an appeal bearing ROR Appeal No.95/2008. This appeal is still pending. When this appeal is pending, again an application is moved by the respondent no.3 to 10 herein before the same Tahsildar and he allowed that application vide order dated 07/08/2008 of which order is under challenge by the present writ petition. 5. After notices, respondent no.1 to 3 appeared in the writ petition and filed their affidavit in reply. In this affidavit in reply, it is 4 contended in para no.7 and para no.8 that when this application was decided by the Tahsildar, he was not aware about the pendancy of the appeal before the Learned SDO. This is not an excuse which is to be tolerated by this Court. 6. The only question arises for consideration that when the respondent no.3 to 10 have preferred an appeal against the order of the Tahsildar and again moved the same Tahsildar for the same remedy, whether the learned Tahsildar is justified in allowing such application. On careful reading of the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, there is no such provision which empower the Tahsildar either to review his own order when the appeal is preferred or to entertain another such application about the same cause. Thus at the outset, it is also not disputed by the respondents herein that who have preferred the appeal before SDO as well as on whose application order dated 07/08/2008 i.e. the impugned order was passed by the Tahsildar. On the face of it, the order passed by the Learned Tahsildar is not maintainable as it is not within the purview of the provisions of The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Hence this order required to be quashed and set aside, and accordingly order dated 07/08/2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. 7. Rule made absolute as indicated above. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. 8. After the judgment in the writ petition is dictated, it is 5 requested across the bar by learned advocate appearing for respondent no.3 to 10 that the directions may be given to Learned S.D.O. to dispose of the appeal expeditiously to which learned advocate for petitioner have no objection. S.D.O. Beed is hereby directed to hear ROR Appeal No.95/2008 as expeditiously as possible. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/wp5407-08