RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule.

3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petitions are taken up for final disposal.

Writ Petition No. 6923 of 2016

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.1.2016 passed by respondent No. 2/Divisional Commissioner (Revenue), Nasik, by which Nasik Appeal No. 24 of 2016 instituted at the behest of respondent No. 5 and 25 of 2016 filed by respondent No. 4 have been allowed and the order of the District Collector, dated 3.11.2015 has been set aside.

5. I have considered the extensive submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides.

6. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

(a) C. Albert Morris vs. K. Chandrasekaran and Others, (2006) 1 SCC 228

(b) Baba and Company, Nellore vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ALT-2012-2-535

(c) S.V. Matha Prasad vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Laws (Mad)-2011-3-120.

7. The undisputed factors that emerge from these proceedings in the light of the record and the submissions of the learned Advocates are as under:-

(i) The location of the site at issue is CTS No. 1854-A, admeasuring 14850 sq. ft. within Municipal Council limits of Shrir