(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5438 OF 2010 1. Ganpat s/o. Baburao Chewale, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 2. Rangnath s/o. Baburao Chewale, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 3. Shivraj s/o. Narsu Chewale, Age : 56 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 4. Prakash s/o. Devidas Chewale, Age : 34 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 5. Praveen s/o. Suryakant Chewale, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 6. Sandipan s/o. Devidas Chewale, Age : 34 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 7. Pandurang s/o. Nivrutti, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 8. Ku. Karuna D/o. Ashok Chewale, Age : 16 years, Occupation : Student. (2) 9. Kum. Nilesh s/o. Ashok Chewale, Age : 14 years, Occupation : Student. 10. Sushil s/o. Ashok Chewale, Age : 12 years, Occupation : Student. Petitioner Nos.8 to 10 under guardianship of grandfather namely, Govind Vitthal Chewale, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 11. Prakash s/o. Nivrutti, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 12. Uamesh s/o. Sopan Chewale, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 13. Smt. Kanta w/o. Sopan Chewale, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Household. 14. Smt. Anjali w/o. Rajkumar, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Household. All R/o. Shindgaon, Taluka : Renapur, District : Latur. .. Petitioners. versus (3) 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Additional Collector, Latur. 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Latur. 3. The Tahsildar, Renapur, Dist. Latur. 4. Vyankat s/o. Narayan Chewale, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 5. Navnath s/o. Pandharinath Chewale, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 6. Santram s/o. Kisanrao Bembde, Age : 60 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 7. Angad s/o. Irappa Chewale, Age : 57 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 8. Vishnudas s/o. Govindrao Chewale, Age : 37 years, Occupation : Service. 9. Datta s/o. Govindrao Chewale, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 10. Vijaykumar s/o. Govindrao Chewale, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculture. (4) 11. Namdeo s/o. Pralhad Chewale, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 12. Anurath s/o. Pralhad Chewale, Age : 22 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 13. Smt. Mangalbai w/o. Pralhad Chewale, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Household. 14. Janardhan s/o. Pralhad Chewale, Age : 20 years, Occupation : Student. 15. Smt. Vimalbai w/o. Sopan Chewale, Age : 53 years, Occupation : Household. 16. Vilas s/o. Sopan Chewale, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 17. Shrikant s/o. Sopan Chewale, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 18. Pralhad s/o. Namdeo Chewale, Age : 60 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 19. Santram s/o. Nagnath Chewale, Age : 59 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 20. Gajanan s/o. Santram Chewale, Age : 34 years, Occupation : Agriculture. (5) 21. Shrinivas s/o. Santram Chewale, Age : 26 years, Occupation : Agriculture. All R/o. Shindgaon, Taluka : Renapur, District : Latur. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. A.D. Wange, Advocate, for respondent nos.8 to 14 and 18 to 21. Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate, for respondent nos.15 to 17. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. Though notice before admission was duly served (6) upon respondent nos.4 to 7, they have chosen not to file appearance or argue the matter personally. As the interest of respondent nos.4 to 7 is taken care of by other respondents, service of notice upon Rule, on respondent nos.4 to 7 is dispensed with. 3. From earlier orders, it appears that efforts were taken to find out whether matter can be decided finally. 4. Adv. Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, for the petitioners, has pointed out that on 3rd February 2011, this Court gave time to Adv. Mr. Bedre, for respondent nos.15 to 17, to find out whether his clients are interested in prosecuting the matter initiated under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (For short, "Code of 1966") 5. Today, Adv. Mr. Bedre, upon instructions, states that the concerned respondents are interested in prosecuting their application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906. 6. Adv. Mr. Sachin Deshmukh has invited attention to said applications dated 11-6-2008 and 27-9-2008 and in that background, he invited attention to earlier history. He points out (7) that earlier proceedings under Section 143 of the Code of 1966, instituted by the respondents, met with failure on 10-12-2007 and hence impugned orders are unsustainable. 7. Adv. Mr. Bedre, Adv. Mr. Wange and learned AGP Mr. Kurundkar are attempting to justify the orders. 8. It is apparent that in earlier round of litigation under Section 143 of the Code of 1966, on 10-12-2007, Additional Collector, Latur, has remanded the proceedings back to the Tahsildar for conducting spot inspection and thereafter for fresh hearing. The proceedings thereafter have not progressed further at all. Giving up those proceedings, simple letters were written to Tahsildar on 11-6-2008 and 27-9-2008. Those letters are now pressed into service as applications under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act. 9. As proceedings under Section 143 of the Code of 1966 are given up, it is not necessary for this Court to consider that controversy. 10. Letters written to Tahsildar on 11-6-2008 and 27-9-2008 do not meet the requirement of Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act at all. (8) 11. At this stage, Adv. Mr. Bedre and Adv. Mr. Wange request for grant of opportunity to respective respondents to file fresh application under Section 5 of Mamlatdars' Courts Act, in accordance with law. The request is being opposed by Adv. Mr. Sachin Deshmukh. 12. However, looking to the nature of controversy, I am inclined to permit the respondents to file fresh application in accordance with law, under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act. 13. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) The respondents are permitted to file fresh application in accordance with law, under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906. Filing of such application shall not, in any way, prejudice any of the rights or contentions available to the petitioners in the matter. If such application is filed within a period of four weeks from today, the Mamlatdar shall proceed further in accordance with law and attempt to decide the same within a period of six months thereafter. (ii) For a period of four weeks from today, the position (9) obtaining as on today shall continue. 14. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp5438