1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLTE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 672 OF 2009 Shri Bandopant Laxman Patil ......Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...... Respondents ----- Mr. Chetan G. Patil, for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the State with Mr. B.B. Chavan, Under Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department present. Mr. P.D. Dalvi, for the Respondent Nos.4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 4(5), 5((1) and 5(5). ---- CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 12TH OCTOBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the office of the Revenue Minister of State of Maharashtra has passed exparte order of stay to the petitioner’s prejudice without hearing the petitioner, though both the courts below have held in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner’s further grievance is that he had filed a caveat with the office of the Revenue Minister, however, he has not been intimated about the fact that the review petition was filed and prior to passing of the interim order no intimation 2 was given to him. On 10.8.2009, we had directed learned AGP to take instructions. By further order dated 29.9.2009, we had directed the AGP to give explanation as to why the Revenue Minister has not disposed of the revision application which is pending before him since 1990, particularly when he had passed an exparte stay order in the matter against the petitioner. 2. Today Mr. B.B. Chavan, Under Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department is present in the court. Learned AGP, on instructions from the Under Secretary, states that the Collector of Kolhapur had called for relevant papers and consequently, all the papers had been given to the Collector of Kolhapur, and therefore, the revision could not be decided. We are, prima facie, not happy with the explanation. If at all, the papers were sent to Kolhapur, the Collector of Kolhapur should have sent them back to the Revenue Minister, and if the Collector of Kolhpaur had not sent back the papers, the Office of the Revenue Ministry ought to have called for the said papers. The revision application cannot be kept pending in this manner particularly when exparte stay order is passed. In view of the statement made by learned AGP on instructions that the Revenue Minister will dispose of the revision application within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order, we do not want to comment further on this inaction. We direct the Revenue Minister to decide the pending revision 3 application within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. The Revenue Minister may do so after hearing both the sides. We make it clear that all contentions raised by both the sides are kept open including contentions raised by the petitioner before us. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. With aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (A.A. SAYED J.) (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)