ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Setalwad, the learned Senior Counsel i/by M/s. Mehta and Girdharilal for petitioners, Mr. Kumbhakoni, the learned associate Advocate General for the State, Mr. Jahagirdar, the learned Senior Counsel for the interveners and Mr. Karandikar the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

(2.) Writ Petition No. 5118 of 1995 was disposed by us on 3/4/2006 by observing, inter alia, that the status of the petitioners over the suit land and the nature of the suit land could not be decided in a writ petition and the efficacious remedy for the same was to either approach the concerned revenue authorities or to institute a suit before the competent Court. On the issue of dealing with an application for N. A. permission during the intervening period and as per the scheme of section 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue code, 1966, we had noted down the undertaking of the deputy Collector that the petitioners shall be noticed as and when the application for N. A. permission is received in respect of the land over which the petitioners are shown as superior holders.

(3.) By this Review Petition, it is contended that the petitioners ought to be heard in an application for N. A. permission in respect of any land over which the names of the petitioners appear in Other Rights Column as well and in support of these contentions the petitioners have relied upon the Government circular (though referred to by the petitioners as Government Resolution) dated 12th october, 1988. This circular by itself does not lay down that the parties whose names are shown in the Other Rights Column in the revenue record or in 7x12 extract would be noticed and/or heard while dealing with an application for N. A. permission under the code. However, it is contended that along with the said circular there is a format and the title to the same reads thus:-