RADHESHYAM M CHOBE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar, Pathri to comply with the order passed by the Deputy Collector in File No.2006/ROR/A/6 and also prays for directing the State and the Tahsildar to enter the name of Mahatmaji Mandir in record of rights and reenter in the crop register of land bearing Gut No.19, admeasuring 1 Hectare 21 R, situated at village Dhalegaon, Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani. The petitioner has also prayed vide prayer clause (B) to issue a writ invalidating the gift deed dated 11.2.2005. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner states on instructions that he does not press for the relief at prayer clause (B).

(3.) We need not advert to the facts of the present case as in response to the notice issued to the respondents, respondent no.2 Tahsildar has filed his affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply at paragraph 6 it is stated that the appeal is pending as the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer was not pointed out to the deponent i.e. the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar would take further steps to see that the matter is finally decided after hearing both the parties within a period of two months. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court. In the light of the statement that the Tahsildar would decide the pending dispute within two months from today after hearing both the parties, according to us it is not necessary to deal with the relief at prayer clause (A) and (C) which the petitioner has prayed for in this petition. It is needless to state that in the event of adverse orders being passed by the Tahsildar, the petitioner has adequate alternate remedies to challenge the same before the appropriate forum.