(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Heard Mr.Kale, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Deshpande, learned A.G.P., for respondents 1 & 2. It appears from the judgment and order dated 17.11.2006 made by this Court in W.P. No.3445/05 that the S.D.O. Warora was directed to decide the applications under Sections 57 and 120(c) of The Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands (Vid. Region) Act, 1958 (for short the Tenancy Act), since this Court found that there was failure on the part of S.D.O. to decide the said application under Section 57 and the application under Section 120(c) of the Tenancy Act as well. Now, after remand, as aforesaid, the S.D.O. has passed fresh order which is impugned in the present writ petition. Reading of the order itself shows that there is absolutely no application of mind to the provisions of the Tenancy Act and Rules while deciding the applications under Sections 57 and 120(c) of the Tenancy Act. The order does not show any discussion as to why the S.D.O. has granted permission under Section 57 or allowed the application under section 120(c). As a matter of fact, the S.D.O. was obliged to decide the application under section 57 as well as the one under section 120(c) of the Tenancy Act by following the procedure that is usually followed including recording of evidence, if any, and looking to the requirements of these provisions. The impugned order does not contain any reason. Hence, I make the following order.
(3.) Impugned order is quashed and set aside. Matter is remitted to S.D.O., Warora, to decide both the applications, i.e. applications under sections 57 and 120(c) of the Tenancy Act according to law, after giving full opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Since the applications are pending from the year 1987, I direct the S.D.O. to decide the same as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within six months from the date of receipt of Writ of this Court. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs.