Alam Ahmad Naikwade And ANR. v. The Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune And ORS.

DSS 920-wp-3771-15 @ caw 104-16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3771 OF 2015 Alam Ahmad Naikwade and anr.

.. Petitioners vs.

The Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and ors.

.. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 104 OF 2016 Mangesh V. Saraf .. Intervener­Applicant In the matter between Alam Ahmad Naikwade and anr.

.. Petitioners vs.

The Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and ors.

.. Respondents Mr. Sudhir C. Halli for the Petitioner Mr. S.B. Deshmukh for Respondent No.2.

Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1,3 to 6. Mr. Anilkumar K. Patil for the Intervener­Applicant ­Mangesh Saraf. CORAM :

M. S. SONAK, J.

DATE : 3 FEBRUARY 2016.

P.C. :­ 1] The challenge in this petition is to the ad­interim order granted by the Additional Commissioner, Pune, which was to operate only upto a limited time. The revision application instituted by the Respondents is pending before the Additional Commissioner. There is accordingly, no need to entertain the present petition. 2] That apart, in case the Petitioners are really aggrieved by the impugned order, then the Petitioners have an alternate, efficacious and statutory remedy available under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLC), including by way of 1/2

DSS 920-wp-3771-15 @ caw 104-16 instituting a revision application before the State Government. The Division Bench of this Court, in case of Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.1, has ruled that even a second revision is maintainable under Section 257 of the MLC. In fact, this decision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5102 of 2006 decided on 6 November 2015.

3] In view of aforesaid, there is no necessity to entertain the present petition and same is dismissed. However, the Petitioners are granted liberty to challenge the impugned order by instituting a revision application under Section 257 of the MLC. 4] The ad­interim orders granted earlier stand vacated. 5] It is made clear that this Court has not examined merits of the matter and therefore all contentions of all parties are left open. 6] Application seeking intervention does not survive and same is also dismissed.

7] All concerned to act on the basis of authenticated copy of this order.

(M. S. SONAK, J.) Letters Patent Appeal No. 55 of 2003 against Writ Petition no. 7477 of 2002 decided on 13 July 2005. 2/2