ssp 1 WP 1011 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1011 OF 2011 Valentine S. Luis .....Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.A.C.Singh i/by Mr.D.R.Shah, for the petitioner. Ms.Geeta Shastri, AGP, for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr.G.W.Mattos, for respondent No.6. Mr.Abhay Patki, for respondent Nos.7 to 11. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 02 nd AUGUST, 2011 P.C. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 19-06-2006 in Tenancy Appeal, annexure B to the petition. The petitioner has also challenged the mutation entry order passed by the Tahasildar as well as the order passed by the Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra dated 04-07-2009, an intimation to that effect seems to have been given on 04-08-2009. By the impugned order, the Revenue and Forest Department, granted permission to Smt.Jaya Santosh Andher and four others, who claim to be tribal holders, to sell the lands to the Pentacal Developers. ssp 2 WP 1011 of 2011 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far as the disputed land is concerned, there is a decree in favour of the petitioner regarding Survey No.239 Part, though the learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 11 disputed the said aspect. However, during the course of hearing, it is pointed out to the Court that by an order dated 26-11-2008, the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, has informed the District Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, to hold appropriate enquiry in this behalf. It is further observed in the said letter that though in M Certificate dated 27-10-1965, there is mention of land Survey No.263 area 1 acre 20 gunthas, there appears no concord in respect of land Survey No.239/1. It has also been observed by the Divisional Commissioner that the ownership rights cannot be ascertained and therefore, it was proposed to hold an enquiry with MHADA and directions was given to the District Collector, Mumbai Suburban, for taking further action in this behalf. 3. In our view, since the enquiry ordered by the Divisional Commissioner is not yet over, the order passed by the State Government cannot be allowed to be implemented. There is a consensus prevailing between the learned Advocates appearing in the matter to the effect that the enquiry ordered by the Divisional Commissioner may be expedited and till the enquiry is over, the order passed by the State Government may not be implemented. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed ssp 3 WP 1011 of 2011 of by directing the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, to hold appropriate enquiry as ordered by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, vide its letter dated 26-11-2008 and after hearing concerned respondents including MHADA, appropriate orders may be passed without further delay and such enquiry shall be completed within a period of six months from today. Till the enquiry is concluded and till the fresh orders is passed in this behalf, the impugned order of the State Government is not to be implemented and said order is subject to the result of the inquiry. In case, the findings of the enquiry is against any of the parties, it will be open to them to challenge the said orders in accordance with law and for that purpose, the order passed by the State Government shall not be implemented for a period of eight weeks from the receipt of intimation from the Collector in this behalf. 4. Learned counsel appearing for MHADA states that MHADA is going to apply to the State Government for reviewing the orders. On this aspect, we are not expressing any opinion. So far as challenge to tenancy order and revenue enquiry are concerned, it will be open to the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings in accordance with law in this behalf. Suffice it to say that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and it is for the concerned authorities to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. ssp 4 WP 1011 of 2011 5. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is disposed of. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )