1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

3. Petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division Nashik in revision RTS application No.194/2008 passed on December 31, 2008.

4. The present writ petitioner was the petitioner before the learned Additional Commissioner, Nashik. Relevant facts and proceedings, I am listing in this writ petition which are necessary for disposal of the petition.

a] Agricultural land bearing gat No.173 admeasuring 7 H 7 R and non cultivable land to the extent of 34R is situated at village Paritwadi Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar.

b] Respondent No.5 in this revision petition is the owner of the said land gat No.173. He made an application to the Tahsildar, Karjat under section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 (herein after referred to Act of 1906). This application was registered as case No.7/2001 by the Tahsildar Karjat. This application was heard and Tahsildar, Karjat passed an order on 29.11.2001. Annexure ‘B is the copy of the order. Tahsildar, Karjat by this order has directed removal of the impediment allegedly created in the way mentioned in the operative part of the order by the petitioner. Petitioner and others were also injuncted permanently by the Tahsildar, Karjat from obstructing or creating any impediment in the road/access/way, by this order passed by the Tahsildar, Karjat.

c] Order passed by the Tahsildar, Karjat in case No.7/2001 dated 29.11.2001 was challenged by filing Review Application annexure c (page 23). Copy of the review application filed on 12.12.2001 by the present petitioner before Tahsildar, Karjat is on record. In other words opponents in case No.7/2001 had sought review of the order dated 29.11.2001 passed by the Tahsildar, Karjat by this application before the same authority i.e. before Tahsildar, Karjat. This review application was entertained by Tahsildar, Karjat. He passed an order Exh.D is copy on record. Tahsildar, Karjat has referred the status of respondent Sukhdeo Kale as original applicant (applicant in original case No.7/2001). Present petitioner is shown as respondent. Here the review application is numbered as 1/2001. Annexure ‘C’ makes the reference of number of the proceeding Wahiwat Case No.7/2001. While parting from this part of the order, it is necessary to be observed that Tahsildar, Karjat has received probably application for review from the writ petitioner on 12.12.2001. On that day said application was not registered as review application, no number was given but then proceeding was titled as case No.7/2001. Exh. C there is an order or endorsement in margin passed by the authority whose designation is not mentioned. This order is in vernacular. By this order temporary injunction is granted. Exh.D is final order in review application which subsequently appears to have been registered as review application No.1/2001. Operative part of this order in review application No.1/2001 dated 21.02.2002 makes it clear that said review application has been allowed by the Tahsildar, Karjat. Order passed in case No.7/2001 dated 29.11.2001 is vacated, cancelled and set aside.

d] Order passed by the Tahsildar, Karjat in review application dated 21.02.2001 was challenged by the respondent No.5 by filing RTS Appeal No. 15/2002 annexure ‘E (page 28) is copy of the judgment. This was under section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Learned Sub Divisional Officer, Karjat by this order dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent No.5, confirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar in review application No.1/2001.

e] Order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Karjat in RTS Appeal No.15/2002 was challenged by respondent No.5 by filing Second RTS Appeal No.253/2002 before the learned Additional Collector, Ahmednagar. Additional Collector, Ahmednagar decided and allowed Second RTS Appeal No. 253/2002 by jud