: 1 : wp-5664-11.sxw mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5664 OF 2011 Bhaveshwari Panipurawatha Sanstha Ltd. ... Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Ganesh Mohite i/b Mr. Hiten S. Venegaonkar for the Petitioners Mr. R.M.Patne AGP for Respondents CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE: AUGUST 10, 2011. P.C.: 1 By this Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are seeking to quash and set aside an order dated 4-6-2011 which has been passed by the Tahsildar Kagal. 2 The grievance of the Petitioners is that they wanted to lay a pipe line through the adjoining lands so as to have facility of water supply for their lands. The Petitioners represent about 70 farmers, who are its members and who have been cultivating the lands in their possession. The Petitioners, therefore, seek that the facility of pipe line through the adjoining lands should be made available so that the lands can be better cultivated. 3 They pointed out that they desire to lay down a pipe line from the survey numbers which are more particularly mentioned in their application and these are all adjoining lands. They have also stated that they are : 2 : wp-5664-11.sxw ready and willing to abide by all rules and regulations while digging the land and laying the pipe line. They are willing to compensate the adjoining land owners/farmers by paying compensation at market rate as well. 4 The Petitioners have stated that without making any inquiry in terms of Section 49 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, the application has been rejected by the Tahsildar. This Application is rejected on the basis that on the objections, which have been raised by the farmers and adjoining land owners, an tripartite committee was set up and which is presently considering the matter. 5 It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners that tripartite committee has already forwarded its report which recommends grant of the permission to lay down the pipe line. Therefore, this reason could not have been assigned by the Tahsildar. Further, it is stated that an application is also made to the Collector of the District Kolhapur, but even that has not been considered. 6 I have heard Mr. Mohite appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. Patne appearing for the Respondent State. It is not necessary to give notice to the private Respondents because no order to their prejudice is being passed. 7 My attention is invited to Section 49 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Mr. Patne has contended that in terms of sub Section 8 of Section 49 there is a remedy available to the Petitioners society. It can : 3 : wp-5664-11.sxw invoke the powers of the Collector which are revisional powers. Mr. Patne submits that instead of going into all the aspects which are factual, the Collector can take cognizance of the grievance of the Petitioners. 8 In my view, the Tahsildar was obliged to make an inquiry in the present case under Section 49 of the Code. Having failed to make that inquiry, the Petitioners have also independently approached the Collector of the District Kolhapur. To my mind, if a direction is given to the Collector to decide the Petitioners request as expeditiously as possible, that would serve the ends of justice. 9 Accordingly, it is directed that the Collector of District Kolhapur, shall treat the present Writ petition and all its annexures as a representation of the Petitioners and after due inquiry in terms of Section 49 of the Code, pass orders on the said application/representation as expeditiously as possible and within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. The Collector shall hear not only the Petitioners but all affected parties and take necessary decisions in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations in the order passed on 4-6-2011. 10 The Petition is allowed in these terms. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)