wp1038.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.1038/2011 Prakash Tulsiram Suradkar -vs- Tahasildar, Motala Taluka and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri A. V. Gawande, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sonak, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 27/06/2011. The proceedings under contention in the present petition are the ones adopted by the respondent No.3 to get himself declared as a tenant under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958. After going through the gamut of remedies available under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 in respect of the declaration of tenancy, which was initially granted to the respondent No.3 by the Tenancy Tahsildar, resulting in filing of a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 3112/2010, by the present petitioner, which came to be dismissed by order dated 28/06/2010. The matter was thereafter carried by way of Letters Patent Appeal by the present petitioner being Letters Patent Appeal No.506/2010, which came to be disposed of on the basis of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The instant petition has been filed on the spacious ground that liberty has been granted to the petitioner by wp1038.11.odt 2/2 order dated 31st January, 2011 passed in the said L.P.A. No.506/2010, which was amongst a group of Letters Patent Appeals, which were disposed of by the said order dated 31st January, 2011. Having read the said order, I do not find any such liberty being granted to the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner having prosecuted the earlier Writ Petition No.3112/2010, which had arisen out of the order dated 31/01/2004 passed by the Tenancy Tahsildar-respondent No.1, would now not be entitled to again file a fresh petition. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE KHUNTE