1. By this Petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India the challenge is to orders dated 7/2/1997 passed by Respodt. 2-Additional Divisional Commissioner in case no. 1997/Rev/R/15 & also to order dated 27/11/1996 of Respodt. 3- Additional Collector (Land Reforms) in Appeal with number 1993/CD/1/Appeal/46 which was assailed in said Revision. Consequential orders of Talathi dated 21/3/1997 implementing these orders are also assailed. It will be first proper to note facts in which these orders came to be passed & then the background facts which give rise to this challenge.

2. Perusal of R-3's order dated 27/11/1996 shows that deceased R-1 Laxman herein was the Applicant/Appellant before said authority. The proceedings began before R-4 Sub divisional Officer, Ambajogai. The report dated 2/8/1996 submitted by SDO Ambajogai came to be accepted by that order & mutation entries 1821, 1888 & 1927 certified on 3/9/1981, 26/9/1982 & 18/5/1983 of village Parli to the extent it related to land survey no. 499EE , area 3 acres ,were cancelled. The revenue authorities were directed to recover occupancy price from Laxman & to mutate his name against said land. Petitioners revision under S. 257 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,1966 (MLR Code) against it was dismissed on 7/2/1997 holding that they have no locus & documents relied upon by them had no legal sanctity.

3. An earlier order of same SDO now needs to be mentioned. Deceased Laxman had instituted case no. 87/ROR/1543 aggrieved by very same mutation entries of land 499EE and SDO had vide order dated 29/5/1990 canceled these entries. Petitioner Amrutrao filed revision under S. 257 of MLR Code with the Additional Commissioner who on 5/5/1992, quashed & set aside the same. Petitioners claim that subsequent orders by revenue authorities are in derogation of this order dated 5/5/1992.

4. There is no dispute that on 12/8/1980 Second Appeal 79 of 1972 filed by these petitioners viz. Dhananjay & Amrut Deshmukh came to be allowed & decree passed by District Court in Regular Civil Appeal was set aside entirely in so far as survey no. 499 EE is concerned. These Petitioners/Appellants were defendants 5 & 6 in Civil Suit 24/1967 instituted by Shri Patwardhan , the original inamdars. Three lands involved in that litigation included survey no.499AA & 499E with present land ie survey no. 499EE. Suit no. 24 of 1967 was filed by Govindrao Patwardhan and defendant no. 7 Nalinibai who later on was transposed as plaintiff no. 2. In Second Appeal, it was not in dispute that the three suit lands were inam lands or madat mash ie personal inam or grant of the said plaintiffs. Land survey no. 499EE was leased out by them in 1922 to one Tulshiram Pawar who was father of Laxman for establishing/running a Gin-- a cotton processing unit. The contention of plaintiffs (inamdars) viz. Patwardhans was that they were entitled to restoration of possession moment the ginning business was closed down or wound up as lease stood forfeited in that event. Plaintiffs claimed that possession 499EE was demanded from Tulshiram and during talks in this respect, Tulshiram died. His heirs ie defendants 1 to 3 in Suit encroached upon 499AA & 499E also. In 1964, these heirs leased out the lands to defendants 5 & 6 ie present petitioners. Trial Court held that Tulshiram had died in 1957 & rights of plaintiffs to inam land was abolished. Hence, they had no title to file suit & accordingly, that suit came to be dismissed. In Regular Civil Appeal, it was found that legal heirs of Tulshiram (defendants 1 to 3 in suit) could not be said to be tenants who could have leased out lands to petitioners and plaintiff inamdars ie Patwardhans were entitled to grant of occupancy rights of these 3 lands from Government under the assumption that there were no tenants on lands. This Court in Second Appeal found that it was necessary for First Appellate Court to find out whether lease of Tulshiram came to an end at any point of time