RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

1. Since all these petitions are identical and have been filed by identically placed petitioners, all these petitions are heard together.

2. Rule.

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

4. The substantive prayer put-forth by the petitioners, challenging the impugned orders, is in paragraph No. 15(B), which reads as under:

“(B) The impugned order communicated to the petitioners vide communication dated 13.7.2015 issued by the Public Information Officer and Nayab Tahsildar in respect of the proceeding of Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, about unnumbered Appeal of the petitioners filed before the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik challenging the order in relation to plot No. 3 of S. No. 198/A2 of village Kargaon passed by the S.D.O. Chalisgaon, may kindly be quashed and set aside by remitting the matter back to the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik for disposal according to law.”

5. It be noted that the plot numbers in the same S. No. 198/A2 of village Kargaon are different in relation to each of these petitioners. Since prayer clause 15(B) is identical, except the Plot Numbers, the same has been reproduced above for the sake of clarity and for reference.

6. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 13.7.2015, identically passed against these petitioners by the Public Information Officer-cum-Naib Tahsildar. By the impugned order, the statutory appeals preferred by the petitioners under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (“MLR Code”) have been rejected for the reason that the appeals have not been filed before the appropriate forum as is prescribed in Schedule “E” under the Act and that the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chalisgaon (“SDO”) dated 7.4.1989 with regard to the pher phar entry No. 4062, is not annexed to the memo of the appeals.

7. The issue in all these matters is that land S. No. 198/A2 in village Kargaon, Tq. Chalisgaon was originally an agricultural land, which was in the possession and cultivation of the landlord Shankar Gulab Wanjari. By a permission No. NA/SR/2/87 dated 1.4.1987 granted under Section 42 of the MLR Code, the user of the land was permitted to utilize the land for nonagricultural purposes. Based on such permission a lay out of 28 plots, along with the roads, drainage and open space was sanctioned by the concerned department. The revised lay out for 20 plots was thereafter sanctioned and the mutation entry and the entries in the 7/12 extract were accordingly brought into effect on 27.6.1987. By various sale deeds, dated 22.3.1988, these 20 plots were sold to these petitioners by the original landlord.

8. As each of these petitioners have purchased different 16 plots, whose numbers are mentioned in the petition, the mutation entries were accordingly effected in the revenue records. The contention of the petitioners is that it was only on 17.4.2015, when they obtained copies of the 7/12 extract of the plots, that they were surprised to note that the mutation entries indicated that the non-agriculture permission has been cancelled on 7.4.1989 by the SDO, Chalisgaon, exercising his powers upon delegation of authority by the District Collector.

9. Being aggrieved by the above order dated 7.4.1989, which purportedly came to the knowledge of the petitioners on 17.4.2015, they preferred their appeals under Section 247 before the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik on 6.6.2015. By the impugned order dated 13.7.2015, the Naib Tahsildar, from the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik informed the petitioners that their appeals had not been entertained for the reasons mentioned therein.

10. Shri Tambe, learned AGP has strenuously opposed these petitions and has prayed for their dismissal with costs. He relies upon the affidavit-in-reply, filed in the first petition