-: 1 :- wp- 8398/05 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8398 OF 2005 Prakash Raghunath Thakur. ..Petitioner. Versus Vaman Devram Joshi & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr. N. V. Gangal for the petitioners. Mr. S. H. Bhosale, AGP for respondent nos. 3 to 6. Mr. S. G. Karandikar for respondent no.2. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : August 3, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Nitin V. Gangal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Karandikar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Mr. S. N. Bhosale, learned AGP for respondent nos.3 to 6. 2. The petitioner claims to be adjacent land owner of land bearing Gat No.73 belonging to respondent no.1. The petitioner claims that the said land is fragment within the meaning of section 7 of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. Respondent no.1 sold the said land to respondent no.2. Being aggrieved by that, petitioner filed proceedings before the SDO, claiming transfer is illegal in view of provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the said Act. He also claimed that he has right of pre-emption and therefore is entitled to purchase the adjacent land. The SDO allowed the said appeal, and therefore, respondent no.1 filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector. The appeal srp -: 2 :- wp- 8398/05 was dismissed. Respondent no.1 thereafter preferred revision before the Additional Commissioner which was allowed and therefore the present petition. 3. Respondent no.1’s revision was allowed on the ground that the SDO has no power to decide validity of transaction which respondent no. 1 allegedly made in contravention of provisions of sections 7 & 9 of the said Act. Apart from this, the Commissioner also found that the SDO exercised powers under section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, and therefore quashed and set aside the said order. The Additional Commissioner by the impugned order has given liberty to the petitioner to file fresh application/complaint for similar reliefs before the competent authority. In the light of above facts and circumstances, I find that no case is made out for interference in the impugned order. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. 4. However, it is clarified that in the event, within the period of four weeks from today, the petitioner files fresh application/complaint in consonance with the liberty granted in the impugned order, the competent authority shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within the period of 6 months from the date of receipt of such complaint. (R.V. MORE, J.)