1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.810 OF 2011 (VINODSING H. RAJPUT..VS..TAHSILDAR, MOTALA TALUKA & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.A,V.Gawande, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. D.B.Patel, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 and 2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 21, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Tenancy Tahsildar on 31.01.2004 on the ground that he was not made a party to the proceedings before the Tenancy Tahsildar and the order passed by the Tenancy Tahsildar cannot be binding on the petitioner. It is necessary to note that though the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Tenancy Tahsildar on 31.01.2004 the petitioner has not challenged the subsequent orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal confirming the order passed by the Tenancy Tahsildar on 31st January, 2004. Moreover, in case, the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of the Tenancy Tahsildar, mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not made a party to those proceedings the petitioner could have pursued the other remedies and should not have directly approached this Court seeking exercise of powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2 In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks interim protection as the same was granted by the order dated 31st January, 2011 in Letters Patent Appeal No.505/2010 for a period of two weeks. The interim protection granted by this Court on 31st January, 2011 expired on 14th February, 2011. Hence, since there was no interim protection during the past one week, there is no question of granting any interim protection at this stage. JUDGE RR..