-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 808 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3669 OF 2000 Bhimrao Balku Mahar. ..Applicant/Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. P. G. Lad for the petitioner. Mr. S. G. Deshmukh for respondent nos.2 to 6 & 8 to 10. Mr. A. I. Patel, AGP for respondent no.1. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : April 8, 2010. P. C. : 1. This civil application is filed for restoration of above writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 21st January 2010 by passing following order. “1. When this matter was called out yesterday, nobody had appeared for the petitioner. Even today also, none appeared for the petitioner. Petition is, thus, dismissed for want of prosecution. 2. In the event, petitioner intends to apply for restoration, it would be obligatory on the part of the petitioner to show as to how the petition survives, in view of law laid down by this Court in the case of Sheela wd/o Vijay v/s. Central Bank of India 1998(1) Mh.L.J. 928 when the same is dismissed against respondent no.7 and 10.” -: 2 :- 2. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents opposed the restoration of writ petition on the ground that the writ petition itself does not survive in view of the failure of the petitioner to bring on record the legal heirs of respondent nos. 7 & 10. 3. The suit land is a Mahar vatan land re­granted to the petitioner’s forefather. The petitioner sold out this property to respondent nos. 2 to 11 by the joint sale deed. The petitioner thereafter challenged this transaction by filing an application before the Tehsildar. One of the grounds was that this property could not be transferred for want of permission under section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Tehsildar dismissed the petitioner’s application and therefore the petitioner preferred an appeal before the SDO which came to be allowed. Respondent nos. 2 to 11 thereafter preferred revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) and the Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the respondent’s revision. 4. It is admitted position that respondent nos. 7 and 10 died during the pendency of this writ petition. As per the order dated 20th November 2009, writ petition stood dismissed as against respondent no.10. Civil application taken out for bringing the legal heirs of respondent no.7 was allowed and accordingly three legal heirs of deceased respondent no.7 were brought on record. However, in the year 2005 those three legal heirs of respondent no.7 have also expired. Thereafter the petitioner did not take any steps to bring on record the legal heirs and legal representatives of deceased legal heirs of original -: 3 :- respondent no.7. Thus, the writ petition stood abated as against respondent no. 7 also. Thus, the impugned order passed by the MRT stands confirmed as against respondent nos. 7 & 10. Since respondent nos. 2 to 11 purchased the suit property by joint sale deed and the impugned order stands confirmed as against respondent nos. 7 & 10, writ petition does not survive in the light of the decision of this Court in the matter of Sheela wd/o Vijay v/s. Central Bank of India 1998(1) Mh.L.J. 928. 5. As nothing survives for consideration in Writ petition itself, this civil application is rendered infructuous and and same is therefore dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)