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