1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3459 OF 2010 (Poonamchand Hukumchand Agrawal & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JULY 29, 2010. Shri Sarda, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Jaiswal, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.3. His grievance is, when the Additional Commissioner has found the appeal not maintainable, the State Government in revision application has without recording any reasons granted interim relief and no further date is also given. He further points out that as per business rules, the Hon'ble Cabinet Minister does not possess such jurisdiction and in revision under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the interim orders are not possible. He further states that the petitioners have sold the property and Respondent No. 3, who has filed revision before State Government has issued public advertisement and is taking steps to the prejudice of even subsequent purchasers. According to him, even if the interim order is vacated, no prejudice is likely to be caused to Respondent No. 3. 2 Shri Deshpande, learned counsel states that when the petitioners have sold the property, there is no question of causing any prejudice to them. He further states that in such a situation, at the most, a date may be fixed before Respondents No. 1 & 2 and matter should be directed to be disposed of expeditiously. The learned AGP is seeking time to obtain instructions. He points out that the Session of the House is going on and subject to it, the proceedings can be disposed of at the earliest. In present facts, when the petitioners have sold the suit property and persons who are not party to this petition are stated to be in possession, it is apparent that no prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioners warranting interference in extra-ordinary jurisdiction at this stage. Hence, I do not propose to examine various contentions being raised by Shri Sarda, learned counsel. The petitioners state that they have filed their reply and documents before Respondent No.1. In this situation, the petitioners to appear before Respondent No. 1 on Wednesday i.e. on 4th August 2010. The Revisional Authority shall proceed to hear the petitioners and revisional applicant and decide the issue as early as possible and in any case within a further period of three weeks thereof. It is made clear that all contentions raised by the petitioners before this Court are kept open for consideration at appropriate stage. 3 With these directions, writ petition is disposed of. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Certified copy expedited. JUDGE *GS.