A.S. Oka, J.

There is a common issue involved in these three petitions. The issue is about the manner in which revision applications and appeals under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short “the said Code”) are being dealt with by the State Government. On the basis of the submissions made across the bar, the issues/grievances which are the subject matter these three petitions can be summarized as under:

(a) The appeals/revision applications which are maintainable before the State Government under the provisions of the said Code and, especially the applications for interim relief therein remain pending for inordinately long time;

(b) As the applications for interim relief are not heard for considerably long time, the appellants/applicants are forced to approach this Court by invoking a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing necessary directions to the appellate/revisional authority;

(c) The parties or their advocates do not get an opportunity to mention their matters before the appellate/revisional authority for grant of urgent interim relief’s and that the applications are heard as and when the appellate/revisional authorities are available;

(d) There is no date fixed for pronouncement of judgments. Invariably, there is a delay in communicating the judgments and/or orders. There is no opportunity to the unsuccessful party to apply for continuation of interim relief to enable him to effectively challenge the judgment and order .

2. In Writ Petition (St.) No. 11253/2017, the grievance of the petitioner is that an appeal preferred by the petitioner in March 2016 is not being heard by the State Government which is the appellate authority and even applications for interim relief are not being heard. In Writ Petition (St.) No. 11254/2017, the grievance is identical.

3. Writ Petition No.7504/2015 was disposed of by the order dated 6th August 2015 by a Division Bench of this Court directing the State Government to decide the revision application preferred by the petitioners by the end of the year 2015. As the said order was not complied with, a contempt petition was filed therein which was disposed of by the order dated 8th September 2016 by another Division Bench of this Court by which time to dispose of the revision was extended by a period of two months. The grievance in Civil Application No.2041/2018 is that the said revision application is not being disposed of notwithstanding the two orders passed by this Court. We must note that in this civil application, a communication dated 24th September 2018 addressed by the Desk Officer of the Revenue and Forest Department to the Assistant Government Pleader is filed which records that the revision application was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 23rd August 2017. A regret has been expressed in the said letter that the revision application could not be disposed of within the time fixed under the order dated 8th September 2016. It is contended that the said order was not served to the applicant. Such grievances arise as after the appeals and revision applications under the said Code are heard by the State Government, the date for pronouncement of judgment is never communicated to the parties.

4. We have extensively heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as the learned AGP for the State. Our attention is invited to the judgment and order dated 24th March 2009 in Writ Petition No.4101/2007 (Smt. Savitri Chandrakesh Pal v. State of Maharashtra and others) wherein the procedure for dealing with the appeals by the State Government has been laid down. Our attention is also invited to the judgment and order dated 17th February 2011 in Writ Petition No.9708/2010 (Smt. Chaya Jagan Kale v. The State of Maharashtra and others) which again lays down guidelines. The learned AGP has placed on record a copy of the Government Resolution dated 17th December 2015 issued by the Revenue and Forest Department by which certain guidelines h