1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7954 OF 2009 Mohd. Faruq s/o. Mohd. Azam Ali and others ....Petitioners. Versus Smt. Husenabai w/o. Bomanbhai and others ....Respondents. Shri. P.S. Pawar, Advocate for petitioners. Shri. D.L. Vakil (Gangapurkar), Advocate for respondent No. 6. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7955 OF 2009 Mohd. Faruq s/o. Mohd. Azam Ali and others ....Petitioners. Versus Smt. Husenabai w/o. Bomanbhai and others ....Respondents. Shri. P.S. Pawar, Advocate for petitioners. Shri. D.L. Vakil (Gangapurkar), Advocate for respondent No. 6. 2 CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 28th June 2010. PER COURT : 1. By these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 6.10.2009 passed in Revision Nos. 37/B/2009/A and 38/B/2009/A by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad. By this order, the order dated 21.11.2008 passed by the Deputy Collector, Aurangabad has been vacated. 2. Shri. Vakil, learned counsel appears for respondent No. 6 in both writ petition Nos. 7954/2009 and 7955/2009. Although other respondents are served, no one appears. Initially respondent No. 5 appeared in person and sought time to engage the lawyer. However, till this date, no one appears for respondent No. 5 and it is reported that respondent No. 5 is hospitalized. 3. Petitioners had moved an application dated 7.7.2008 in appeal No. 3/2008, claiming the relief of injunction, restraining the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 9 from alienating, transferring and creating third party interest or making any type of construction in the suit lands i.e. C.T.S. Nos. 18136, 18137 and 18139 till the disposal of application under section 98 of Hydrabad Tenancy Act. The Deputy Collector earlier granted order of status-quo. However, subsequently it was vacated. Against the order, vacating status-quo dated 21.11.2008, the aforesaid two appeals were 3 preferred before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal confirmed the order of vacating the status-quo. 4. It seems that the petitioners herein are claiming to be the heirs of the protected tenants and the proceedings for that purpose under section 98 of the Hydrabad Tenancy Act are going on. If at all, pending decision of such proceedings, any alienation or transfer takes place or third party interests are created in the properties in question, the same shall obviously, be the subject to result of proceedings under section 98 of the said Act. However, all such transfers or alienations are made, or creation of interest takes place, the parties to the proceedings shall immediately bring it to the notice of the Deputy Collector and of the parties to proceedings, in writing. All such transfers, alienations or creation of interest or construction shall be subject to outcome of the said application under section 98 and it shall be at the risk of the persons purchasing land and carrying out construction. 5. With the aforesaid clarification, no further orders are required to be passed in this petition. Both these petitions are dismissed as such. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp7954.09