1 W.P.No.3355/97 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3355 OF 1997. 1. Dhananjay Changdev Shirsatha, 2. Mukind Changdev Shirsatha, 3. Gokul Changdev Shirsatha, 4. Subhash Sudhakar Shirsatha, 5. Ashok Karbhari Shirsatha, 6. Digambar Karbari Shirsatha, 7. Dilip Sudhakar Shirsatha, 8. Smt.Sugandhabai W/o Sonyabapu Ghogare, 9. Smt.Sumanbai W/o Narayan Ghogare, 10. Changdev Kashinath Shirsatha Petitioner Nos.1 to 10 all major, R/o Kolher Khurd, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The Tahsildar at Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. 2. The Collector, Ahmednagar (Tenancy Department). 2 W.P.No.3355/97 3. The State of Maharashtra through Revenue and Forest Department. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.S.Kulkarni, advocate holding for Mr.S.D.Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 03.08.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed assailing the notice dated 14.8.1996, thereby directing the petitioners to hand over the possession of the property allotted to the petitioners. The said notice was issued pursuant to the interim orders passed in W.P.No.3115/1996. 3. Mr.S.S.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned notice was solely issued on the basis of the interim 3 W.P.No.3355/97 orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.3115/1996. This Court has eventually dismissed W.P.No. 3115/96 vide its judgment and order dated 5.3.2009. The learned counsel further contends that in view of the same the impugned notice also can not be sustained. 4. The petitioners appear to be the awardees of the land which was declared as surplus. I have perused the impugned notice and it appears that the said notice was issued only on the count that this Court has passed interim orders in W.P.No.3115/1996 and because of the said interim orders, the Tahsildar sought the possession of the lands from the petitioners. 5. I have perused the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.3115/1996. This Court has dismissed the said Writ Petition. When the Writ Petition is dismissed,all the interim orders passed during the pendency of the Writ Petition also come to an end. 6. As the basis of the notice dated 4 W.P.No.3355/97 14.8.1996 itself does not survive, the impugned notice is not sustainable. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp335597