:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7322 OF 2007 Mehabubali Sayyed Ali .. Petitioner. Vs. Ramdas Laxman Jopale & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Girish R.Agrawal for the petitioner. Ms.Deepali Kale i/b Mr.P.N.Joshi for respondent nos.1 to 7. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 3RD MARCH, 2008. DATED : 3RD MARCH, 2008. DATED : 3RD MARCH, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner has impugned an order dated 13.8.2007 passed by the Tahsildar in tenancy case No.429 of 2007 by which he has fixed purchase price under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and has directed the respondent-tenant to pay the purchase price to enable the said authority to issue 32-M certificate. 3. It appears, earlier the petitioner had approached this court by way of writ petition no.3937 of 2007 which came to be disposed of on 25.7.2007 by the following order: "1. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer directing fixing the purchase price under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy Act has been challenged by :2: :2: :2: filing a revision by the present petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner. Before the Divisional Commissioner, the present petitioner moved an application for stay of the order dated 30.10.2006 passed in the tenancy appeal, and the rejection of the said application has given rise to filing of this writ petition. Revision is pending on the file of Divisional Commissioner. The petitioner is not in possession of the suit land. The stay asked for is only in relation to fixation of purchase price. It is obvious that fixation of the purchase price pending the revision, would be subject to the ultimate decision in the revision. In this view of the matter, no prejudice whatsoever will be caused to the petitioner on account of refusal of grant of stay by the Divisional Commissioner. Hence writ petition is summarily dismissed." 4. Looking to the prayers made in the writ petition and considering the order dated 25.7.2007 and that the revision is still pending before the Divisional Commissioner, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. It is always open for the petitioner to seek appropriate relief after disposal of the revision pending before the Divisional Commissioner. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the sole petitioner has died. In view thereof the writ petition is dismissed as abated. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)