1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1846 OF 2008 Sunil D. Kamte & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Sarojini T. Shitole & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.V.Sadavarte for petitioners Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P. for State. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 26th March 2008 P.C. . The petitioner has made a grievance before this Court that the land S.No.3/1 and more particularly described in para 2 of the petition 2 was owned by the landlord who inducted the predecessor of the petitioner as tenant. Since then, the tenant was in actual possession and cultivating the land. The tenant was protected tenant. As per section 32G of the Tenancy Act, proceedings were initiated but later on they were dropped by an order dated 8th May 1963. The proceedings under section 32F read with Section 32G initiated in the year 1973 continued and it was revealed during the course of the same that the landlord who was a minor become major on 9th June 1971. In such circumstances, proceedings were closed as premature. Yet, the petitioners are apprehending that their rights in the land would be adversely affected. The present proceedings have resulted in the petitioners asserting their rights by filing a suit and in that an interim order has been passed, protecting their possession. In such circumstances, now, the Tahsildar & Agricultural Land Tribunal, Haveli, Tahsil Haveli is proceeding with the 3 matter under section 43-C, although, the earlier proceedings under section 32F read with section 32G are pending. There are no records available and yet, the proceedings are being pursued which would result in grave prejudice to the petitioners. Reliance is placed upon Roznama and it is urged that on some reason or the other, the matter is postponed. The apprehension is that the respondents would gain an advantage and would defeat the proceedings even before the Civil Court on account of parallel enquiry. 2. Once, the roznama has been recording consistently that the record is not traceable, then, as to why proceedings are being continued is not clear. 3. To clarify all these doubts, learned A.G.P. was directed to take instructions and accordingly after taking instructions from Mr.Deshmukh, Tahsildar, Haveli who is present in 4 Court, he makes a statement that the enquiry would be held and concluded after hearing petitioners and the other affected parties. Records are now traceable and opportunity will be given to parties to inspect the same. 4. In the light of this statement made on instructions, Mr.Sadavarte does not press this petition. All contentions on merits of both parties are kept open. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)