IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4148 OF 1991. Anant Waman Deshpande, since deceased, through L.Rs. 1-A. Smt. Kamalini w/o Anant Deshpande and others. .... PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1 Tahsildar, Yawal and ors. .... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri Sangit, Advocate holding for Shri V.J. Dixit, Advocate for petitioners. Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondents. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 05th JANUARY, 2010. PER COURT: 1. This petition takes exception to the notice dated 9.5.1987 issued by the Tahsildar, Yawal and notice dated 23.5.1991 issued by Circle Officer, Yawal Region, Yawal and a demand notice dated 25.6.1991 issued by the Tahsildar, Yawal. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in question is a barren land. It is having CTS No.3836 and N.A. permission has been granted for residential purpose. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would, therefore, submit that the demand notice asking the petitioners to deposit Rs.18,156/- is calculated on the basis that the land in question is notified for commercial purposes. He would, therefore, submit that when the land in CTS No.3836 is notified for residential purposes and the same is being used for residential purposes, the notice dated 9th May, 1987 issued by revenue Authority asking the petitioners to deposit the amount considering that the land is being used for commercial purpose is illegal. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners took me through the pleadings in the petition and grounds raised therein and submitted that the impugned demand notice had been issued by the revenue authorities on misconception that the land in question is being used for commercial purposes. 4. The learned A.G.P. invited my attention to the provisions of Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (for short, the MLR Code) and submitted that there was an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer or the Collector, as mentioned in Schedule `E' to Section 247 of the MLR Code and therefore, this petition may not be entertained. According to the learned A.G.P., whether the land in question is used for commercial purpose or residential purpose is a disputed question of fact and, therefore, the same cannot be gone into by this Court. It is for the revenue authorities to look into it and decide as to whether the land in question is used for residential or commercial purpose. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.P., I am of the considered view that it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioners that the land in question is being used for residential purposes. It may be that the petitioners are using the land for residential purposes; however, unless the said fact is established by the petitioners before the appropriate authority, it is not possible to accept the contention raised by the petitioners in this petition. I find considerable substance in the arguments advanced by the learned A.G.P. that the question involved in this writ petition can be gone into by the Collector or the Sub Divisional Officer, as the case may be, to put an end to the controversy. 6. Since the petition is pending from 1991 and interim relief has been granted in favour of the petitioners, it would be in the fitness of things that the interim relief is continued till the petitioners approach to the concerned revenue authority under Section 247 of the MLR Code and final decision is taken by the concerned authority on the appeal or the proceedings filed before the concerned authority by the petitioners. 7. In the result, the petitioners are directed to approach the concerned revenue authority under Section 247 of the MLR Code within a period of three months from today. The concerned revenue authorities is directed to take decision on the appeal filed by the petitioners within six months thereafter. Till the matter is finally decided by the revenue authority, interim relief granted by this Court at the time of admission of the petition on 30.1.1992 in terms of amended prayer clause (C1) to continue. Prayer clause (C1)) reads thus: "(C1) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present writ petition the respondent no.1 and 2 be restrained by an order and injunction from recovering the land revenue of land of the petitioner that is City Survey No.3836 of Yawal District Jalgaon on the basis of Commercial rate of Non-Agricultural assessment." Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. [S.S. SHINDE, J ] ... PLK/*