1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Review Application No.7246 Of 1998 In Writ Petition No.5293 Of 1997 1) The State of Maharashtra ] ] 2) The Tahsildar, ] Jintoor, District Parbhani. ] ] 3) The Tahsildar, ] Applicants Sengaon, District Parbhani. ] Versus 1) Sunil Sakharam Pawar, ] Age 36 years, ] Occupation : Service, ] R/o Kapadsingi, ] Taluka Sengaon, ] District Parbhani. ] ] 2) Kisan Namdeo Bhange, ] Age 40 years, ] Respondents Occupation : Labour, ] R/o As above. ] -------- Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Government Pleader, for appellants. Mr. V.C. Solshe, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No.2. ------- 2 CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 24th AUGUST, 2010 ORAL ORDER (Per NARESH H PATIL, J.): 1) The respondent No.2 - Kisan Namdeo Bhange filed Writ Petition No.5293 of 1997 seeking directions to respondent No.3 to hand over possession of land Gut No.23 to the extent of 4 acres and 10 gunthas situated at village Kapadsingi, Taluka Sengaon, District Parbhani. The petitioner claims to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner contends that he applied against a proclamation issued by respondent No.2 - Tahsildar Sengaon who allotted the said land to the petitioner. As the possession of the said land was not handed over, the petitioner had to approach this Court through the said writ petition. By an order dated 30th November 3 1998 the petition was disposed of finally by recording statement of the Assistant Government Pleader that within three weeks the petitioner would be put into possession of the property. 2) The learned counsel Smt. Kulkarni appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was put in possession. The revenue record supports the claim of the petitioner being in possession, according to the counsel. 3) Respondent No.1 - Sunil Sakharam Pawar filed Civil Application No.6932 of 1998 in Writ Petition No.5293/1997 on 11-12-1998. He prayed for following relief in the civil application. (a) The civil application may kindly be allowed. 4 (b) That, the intervenor may kindly be arrayed as a party in the respondent caption. (c) That, the pending the hearing and final disposal of this Civil Application the order which is passed by this Hon’ble High Court dt. 30.11.1998, in Writ Petition No. 5293/97, may kindly be stayed.” 4) By an order dated 18-12-1998 the petitioner's application for intervention was allowed and the application was disposed of. The contention of the counsel appearing for the intervener Sunil Pawar is that he was landless person and was working in Central Reserve Police Force in the year 1985 and at the time when the application was filed he was working in the State of Assam. 5) The State filed Civil application No. 7246 of 1998 in Writ Petition No.5293 of 1997 with a prayer to modify the order passed by 5 this Court on 30-11-1998 in the writ petition and seeking interim relief that the order passed by this Court on 30-11-1998 be stayed. 6) By an order dated 18-12-1998 the review application was admitted making it returnable on 19th January 1999. In the meanwhile this Court stayed the order passed by it on 30th November 1998 in Writ petition No.5293 of 1997. 7) The learned Additional Government Pleader Shri. Kurundkar appearing for the State submitted that, the land was allotted by the Tahsildar which order was cancelled by the Collector. The Tahsildar had no authority to allot the land. So far the order passed by the Collector cancelling the allotment, if it was passed, has not been placed on record. 6 8) On the issue of handing over of possession the parties are raising disputed questions. In the civil application filed by the State it is stated that 5 hectares and 20 gunthas land situated at village Borkhani, Taluka Sengaon was alloted to the intervenor Sunil Pawar. However, the intervenor refused to take possession of the land and the said land also is in possession of the Government. 9) In the light of the facts of the case, the orders passed by this Court and the submissions advanced we find that, the issue in respect of the disputed questions raised by the parties and the allotment could be looked into by the Collector Parbhani / Hingoli. 10) We, therefore, direct the Collector of Parbhani / Hingoli to look into the issue and after going through the record and issuing 7 notices to the concerned parties pass appropriate order by giving brief reasons, on the grievance raised by the parties before this Court within three months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. 11) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Sd/- Sd/- (K.K. TATED, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ ra.7246.08