1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.1125 OF 2007 Prabhakar M. Shetty. ...Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Ms.Ankansha Thakkar i/b. M/s. Purnanand & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Jadhav, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr.Kishor V. Tembe for Respondent No.6. Ms. Madhavi S. Nalawade for Respondent No.8. Mr.Arshad Haindadey for Respondent Nos.10 to 21. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. November 30, 2009. P.C. The Petition is directed against orders dated 15th March 1994 passed by the Additional Commissioner, 24th September 1998 passed by the Secretary and Officer on Special Duty (Appeals) and 9th February 2007 passed by the Principal Secretary in the Revenue and Forests Department. Against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, sanctioning sub division of the larger layout, proceedings were 2 initiated before the Deputy Collector by Respondent Nos.9 to 21 which resulted in an order dated 26th November 1992 by which the order of the Sub Divisional Officer was set aside. The Sixth Respondent filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner to which Respondent Nos.9 to 21 were impleaded. On 15th March 1994, the Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector. The order of the Additional Commissioner was confirmed on 24th September 1998 by the Principal Secretary and Officer on Special Duty in the Revenue and Forests Department. The Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Government in order to challenge the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and sought a confirmation of the order of the Deputy Collector dated 26th November 1992, by which, as noted earlier, the order of the SDO was set aside. The Appeal by the Petitioner was filed as a Constituted Attorney for Respondent Nos.9 to 21. During the pendency of the appeal, Respondent Nos.9 and 21 appeared before the Appellate Authority, through Respondent Nos.18 and 19. 3 The Constituted Attorney was not present. The appeal was dismissed inter alia holding that the proceedings initiated by the Constituted Attorney were not maintainable since the decision of the Additional Commissioner dated 15th March 1994 had been challenged before the Government and had been confirmed on 24th September 1998. The grievance of the Petitioner is that since as a Constituted Attorney, he represented Respondent Nos.9 to 21, a notice should have been served on him before the impugned order dated 9th February 2007 came to be passed. All the orders to which a reference has been made, have been passed in the course of revenue proceedings. It is a settled principle of law that revenue proceedings are not conclusive on questions of title which must be adjudicated by the Court of competent jurisdiction. The Petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance, being Suit No.462 of 2008 which is pending on the Original Side of this Court and in which an interim order has been passed on 25th April 2008 restraining Respondent Nos.9 to 21 from 4 creating third party rights. The Sixth Respondent has filed Suit No. 783 of 1994 in this Court for specific performance which is also pending before this Court. The adjudication of the rights which the Petitioner on the one hand and the Sixth Respondent on the other hand, claim will be rendered in the suits which are filed and are pending. In so far as the Petitioner is concerned, his title is still to be perfected by an adjudication in the suit for specific performance. At the highest the Petitioner had a Power of Attorney in his favour which, together with the agreement for sale, came to be terminated. In the event that the suit for specific performance filed by the Petitioner is decreed, necessary consequences would follow in so far as the revenue records are concerned. Till then, the adjudication of the rival contentions cannot be carried out either in the course of the revenue proceedings or in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Petition is dismissed, however, with the observation that this order shall not come in the way of the trial of the rival contentions in the suits which are pending before this Court. ... 5