1 W.P. 5655.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5655 OF 2011 1. Ramrao S/o Kishanrao Badge Age : 55 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Patoda (Belkhandi), Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 2. Vilasrao S/o Kishanrao Badge Age : 52 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Patoda (Belkhandi), Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 3. Ashabai D/o Kishanrao Badge Age : 41 Yrs., Occ. Household, R/o : Umari, Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 4. Latabai D/o Kishanrao Badge Age : 38 Yrs., Occ. Household, R/o : Kutewadi, Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 5. Ramilabai D/o Kishanrao Badge Age : 36 Yrs., Occ. Household, R/o : Pithi, Tq. Patoda, Dist. : Beed. .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. Rajabhau S/o Ashruba Sapate Age : Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Kadamwadi, Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 2 W.P. 5655.2011 - [ J ] 2. Mahadev S/o Ramkishan Sapate Age : Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Kadamwadi, Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 3. Dnyanoba S/o Shrirang Walekar Age : Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Kadamwadi, Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 4. Sarjerao S/o Rangnath Sapate Age : Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Kadamwadi, Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 5. Gorakh S/o Sahebrao Walke Age : Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Patoda (Belkhandi), Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 6. Ganpat S/o Sahebrao Walke Age : Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Patoda (Belkhandi), Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 7. Sakharam S/o Dajiba Wanve Age : 63 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Kacharwadi, Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 8. Laxman S/o Gahaninath Wanve Age : 60 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Kacharwadi, Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 9. Bhagwan S/o Gahaninath Wanve 3 W.P. 5655.2011 - [ J ] Age : 60 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Kacharwadi, Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 10. Govardhan S/o Gahininath Wanve Age : 45 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Kacharwadi, Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 11. Shrirang S/o Ashruba Wanve Age : Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Kacharwadi, Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 12. Manohar S/o Ashruba Wanve Age : Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Kacharwadi, Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 13. Balasaheb S/o Ashruba Wanve Age : Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Kacharwadi, Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 14. Vithal S/o Pandurang Wanve Age : Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Kacharwadi, Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 15. Ganesh S/o Pandurang Wanve Age : Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Kacharwadi, Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 16. Bhivrao S/o Suryabhan Kuchekar Age : Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, 4 W.P. 5655.2011 - [ J ] R/o : Patoda (Belkhandi), Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 17. Bhaurao S/o Devrao Kuchekar Age : Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Patoda (Belkhandi), Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 18. Raosaheb S/o Devrao Kuchekar Age : Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Patoda (Belkhandi), Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 19. Sopan S/o Devrao Kuchekar Age : Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Patoda (Belkhandi), Tq. & Dist. : Beed. 20. Sukhdeo S/o Devrao Kuchekar Age : Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Patoda (Belkhandi), Tq. & Dist. : Beed. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. C.R.Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.V.Naiknavare, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 1, 3 to 6. Mr. S.S.Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 4, 7 to 15. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 05/12/2011 5 W.P. 5655.2011 - [ J ] ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner had filed Suit for injunction. Along with the Suit, the petitioner had also filed an application for temporary injunction. The said application came to be rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the Appeal was filed. The District Court dismissed the Appeal. The plaintiffs have assailed the said order in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr. C.R.Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the possession of the suit property was delivered to the predecessor in title of the petitioner in the execution proceedings. The Taba Pawti and the panchanama to that effect are filed on record. But, the Courts below have not considered the said aspect. No further proof is required to show the possession of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the order of the Additional Collector has been mis-read by the Courts below. The Additional Collector has not set aside the order of Tahsildar, but has only said that if the rule has been violated, then to reconsider the same. Against the said order, the Appeal is filed before the Additional Commissioner. The same is pending. The next date in the said Appeal is 31/01/2012 and the order of status-quo is continued which is 6 W.P. 5655.2011 - [ J ] passed by the Additional Commissioner earlier. 4. Mr. S.S.Chapalgaonkar, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 4, 7 to 15 supports the order passed by the Courts and states that both the Courts have prima facie found that the plaintiffs could not prove their possession. The panchanama and Taba Pawti are only the paper panchanama and no actual physical possession was delivered to the plaintiffs or to their predecessor in title. Both the Courts have concurrently come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs could not prima facie prove the possession and this court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not entertain the petition. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the proceedings. 6. It appears that the proceedings referred to the authorities U/s 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure [ For short, ‘ the Code ’ ] are pending with the revenue authorities i.e. the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner has passed the order of status-quo earlier and the same has been continued. 7. There are rival contentions in this regard. From the 7 W.P. 5655.2011 - [ J ] proceeding in execution, it seems that it has not attained the finality and is still subjudiced before the revenue authority. 8. The Additional Commissioner has also passed order directing the parties to maintain status-quo. 9. In light of the above, it would be in fitness of things to get the Suit decided on its own merits expeditiously . 10. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the directions to the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of possession or to abide by the orders passed by the authorities dealing with the execution U/s 54 of the Code. 11. The trial Court shall expeditiously dispose of the Suit preferably within the period of nine ( 9 ) months from today. 12. Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/W.P. 5655.2011 - [ J ] 8 W.P. 5655.2011 - [ J ]