1 wp3074.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3074 OF 2011 Bhagwan S/o Maroti Damale ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.W. Mundhe, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Mr. S.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent nos. 5 and 6. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 2nd May, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Mundhe for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Advocate Mr. Deshmukh for respondent nos. 5 and 6. 2. In response to the orders dated 25th April, 2011, today Advocate Mr. Deshmukh states that certificate issued under Section 32 M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 is in relation to land survey no. 28/2 which admeasures 1 H 87 R. His contention is earlier the entire land was having survey no. 28 and after its partition, portion of petitioner has become survey no. 28/1 and portion purchased by the respondent no.2 has 2 wp3074.11 been given number survey no. 28/2. 3. Advocate Mr. Mundhe is not accepting this. According to him, name of petitioner and his forefathers was rightly continued upon survey no. 28/2 since last several years. He again reiterated the fact that he was not party to the Section 32M Proceedings. He invites attention to the fact that along with appeal memo, the present respondent nos. 5 and 6 have only produced the photostat copy of certificate allegedly issued under Section 32M. In this view of the matter, learned Counsel states that though remand for non- availability of records of Tahsildar in case no. 16 of 2004 may be said to be justified, still orders dated 29.05.2009 deleting the name of the petitioner can not be continued. He therefore insists that during pendency of the proceedings, as per the impugned order name of petitioner must be restored in revenue record. 4. Learned A.G.P. has supports the impugned order. 5. After hearing respective Counsel, it appears that the records of case no. 16 of 2004 decided by the Tahsildar, Shevgaon are not available from last few years. The Revisional Authority has remanded matter back due to absence of those records. It is obvious that those records need to be reconstructed. 3 wp3074.11 Reconstructions may require some time because of the available cross reference to some other cases. In this view of the matter and specific contention of the petitioner that certificate issued under Section 32 M is not binding upon him, I find that proper enquiry after reconstruction is warranted and hence, remand by learned Additional Collector for that purpose can not be said to be unjustified. 6. Reconstruction and enquiry may take some time and till then the petitioner also can not be made to suffer. This Court after hearing respective Counsel on 25th April, 2011 has directed the parties to maintain status-quo. That interim order shall continue to operate during pendency of proceedings before the Tahsildar, Shevgaon. The said Authority shall attempt to reconstruct the record and decide the controversy as early as possible and in any case by 31.08.2011. The parties are directed to appear before that Authority on 25th May, 2011 and abide by its further directions in the matter. The said Authority shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observations made by the Additional Commissioner in his order dated 04.11.2010 or then by Additional Collector, Ahmednagar in orders dated 29.05.2009. 7. Needless to mention that the orders of status-quo granted by 4 wp3074.11 this Court to continue till the Tahsildar, Shevgaon decides the matter. 8. With these directions, the Petition is partly allowed. No costs. 9. The parties to act upon the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Shirestedar. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp3074.11