1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4905 OF 2010 1).Urmila W/o Nilkanth Bhakre Age 65 years, Occupation agriculturist R/o Ganesh Colony, Amravati, Tahsil and District Amravati. 2).Anil Gangabishan Gattani Age 44 years, Occupation agriculturist R/o Ganesh Colony, Amravati, Tahsil and District Amravati. ….. Petitioner. V e r s u s Adinath Swami Sanstha, Morshi Registered Public Trust, bearing Reg.No.A/267/Amravati, by its Trustees; 1).Vijay Kumar Padmakar Awathnakar 2).Arun Shankar Netake 3).Umesh Namdeo Palsapure 4).Rajendra Shridhar Bhagwat 5).Gajendra Alias Gajanan Unohane 2 6).Sub-Divisional Officer, Morshi Tq.Morshi, Dist.Amravati. All C/o Adinath Swami Sanstha, Morshi Tahsil and District Amravati. ….. Respondents. Shri S.R.Deshpande, counsel for petitioner. Shri J.T.Gilda, counsel for respondent no.1 to no.5. Shri A.M.Deshpande, AGP for respondent no.6 Coram : R.K.Deshpande, J. Dated : 5 th April, 2011 Oral Judgment. 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by the consent of the parties. 2. This writ petition challenges the order dated 19.7.2010 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur in Tenancy Revision No.TEN/B/41/2009. The revision filed by the respondents -Trust has been allowed by setting aside the order dated 22.9.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Morshi. The Sub Divisional Officer, Morshi had fixed the purchase price in respect of land in question. 3 3. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur in its impugned order has observed that, the Sub Divisional Officer should not have acted in undue haste in deciding the appeal and it would have been much better and appropriate if he would have first decided the proceeding pending before it under section 129(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (“said Act”). 4. The learned counsel for the parties admitted that, the proceeding under 129(b) of the said Act are pending before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur. If this is the position, then instead of setting aside the order dated 22.9.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Morshi, it would have been proper for the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur to decide both the proceedings together. 5. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 19.7.2010 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, setting aside the order dated 22.9.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Morshi, is hereby quashed and set aside. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur is directed to 4 decide the Tenancy Revision No.TEN/B/41/2009 along with Tenancy Revision No.10 of 2011 fixed on 26.4.2011. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur to decide the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. All the questions including maintainability of both the revisions are kept open to be considered on merits in accordance with law. JUDGE Bhushan