*1* wp.1348.11.915.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1348 OF 2011 Vishwas Sadanand Karekar. ..Petitioner -Versus- Yashwant Ambaji Shelke (decd.) and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.P.S.Dani, for the Petitioner. Mr.Vishwas Chitnis, for the Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d). Ms.P.S.Cardozo, AGP, for the Respondent No.18. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 27th July, 2011. P.C.: 1 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.01.2011 which has been passed by the Additional Collector, Raigad at the instance of the Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d). 2 The sale deed was executed pursuant to the order of permission/ sanction under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and that permission and the sale deed is of the year 1996. The Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) have questioned the grant of permission and the order in that behalf, by filing an application before the Additional Collector, Raigad. The Additional Collector, Raigad was aware that the application seeks to invoke his powers under section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. However, on the same day on which it is filed, namely, 11.01.2011, he passed an order restraining the Petitioner and others under the sale deed from creating any third party rights in respect of the property covered by the sale deed. Now, it is an admitted position that before such an order was passed, the Petitioner was not given any notice nor was he heard. Further, my attention is invited to the memo of the application wherein it invoked the *2* wp.1348.11.915.sxw powers under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 whereas the impugned order proceeds on the basis that the permission is impugned and therefore, the authority is supposed to exercise his power under Section 76A of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. That power on plain reading of section itself, in the submission of Mr.Dani, cannot be exercised after expiry of one year from the date of the order. That is revisional power given to the Collector. 3 Bearing in mind that this Court, at the stage of ad-interim order on 11.02.2011, has passed an order noting all these grievances of the Petitioner and finding that the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) finds it difficult to justify the order that is impugned in the Writ Petition; the interest of justice would be served if the same is quashed and set aside. 4 Accordingly, the order dated 11.01.2011 is quashed and set aside. The Additional Collector, Raigad who is seized of the main matter will now consider the objections of the Petitioner with regard to the jurisdiction of the said Additional Collector, so also, the maintainability and merits of the proceedings. Needless to clarify that if the Additional Collector holds that he has necessary powers in law, he should decide as to whether, any period of limitation prescribed therein has been adhered to by the original Applicants and whether, he has any powers to condone the delay caused in filing the proceedings. Even the aspect of limitation will be covered in the objection of the maintainability of the proceedings and without addressing himself to these matters, he should not proceed to go into the merits of controversy. Keeping open all contentions of both sides with regard to each of the above aspects, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)