The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellate provision under the Land Revenue Code is a general provision, and the appeal dealt with extraction of minor minerals. The court found that the appeal filed by respondent No.4 was without jurisdiction as it was not maintainable under Rule 82 of the Maharashtra Minor Minerals Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013.

JUDGMENT

Ujjal Bhuyan, J. - Heard Mr. Walawalkar, learned senior counsel with Mr. S. M. Sabrad and Mr. Amey Sawant, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S. L. Babar, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3-State; and Mr. Vineet B. Naik, learned senior counsel with Ms. Priyanka Badrashete instructed by Mr. N. N. Bhadrashete, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4(a) and 4(b).

2. By filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 27.12.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai i.e. respondent No.3 in Appeal/Desk/MNL/756/2018 and further to dismiss the said appeal filed by respondent No.4.

3. Be it stated that by the said order dated 27.12.2018, respondent No.3 as the appellate authority had allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.4 as the appellant under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 read with Rule 82 of the Maharashtra Minor Minerals Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 setting aside the order dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Collector, Thane i.e. respondent No.2 granting mining lease to the petitioner.

4. Facts presented before the Court by both petitioner and respondent No.4 have become extremely unwieldy owing to repeated rounds of objections, appeals and further appeals by and between the parties. Therefore, endeavour of the Court would be to refer to only those facts which are considered to be relevant in the opinion of the Court for adjudication of the lis.

5. Case of the petitioner is that it had purchased land bearing Survey No.208 (part) (new Survey No.4) admeasuring 20 acres from the original owners sometime in the year 1987. Since then petitioner is carrying on quarrying activities of extraction of minor minerals from the said land after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities.

6. It is stated that respondent No.4 was also carrying on quarrying activities of extraction of minor minerals.

7. Dispute started when petitioner lodged complaint before Collector, Thane i.e. Respondent No.2 alleging that respondent No.4 had encroached into the land of the petitioner and had illegally extracted minor mineral therefrom without permission of respondent No.2. On such complaint, respondent No.2 had directed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Thane Division, Thane to fix the boundary between the two parties as per provisions of Section 135 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (briefly the ''Land Revenue Code'' hereinafter) and to file report. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer after carrying out the necessary exercise, fixed the boundary by passing order dated 17.05.2006.

8. The aforesaid order dated 17.05.2006 was set aside by the Additional Collector (Appeal), Thane on appeal preferred by respondent No.4 vide order dated 08.12.2006 whereby direction was issued for carrying out ''pot hissa'' measurement of the disputed site. Following the same, ''pot hissa'' measurement of the land was carried out and the boundary came to be fixed. Superintendent of Land Records, Thane thereafter passed order dated 18.05.2007 fixing the boundary of the lands belonging to the petitioner and respondent No.4. Though respondent No.4 filed application for review of the said order, the same came to be dismissed. Thus, order dated 18.05.2007 attained finality.

9. Following the same petitioner filed application before the Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Thane for cancellation of the measurement map which was allowed vide order dated 27.05.2008. This led to filing of appeal by respondent No.4 before Deputy Director of Land Records. Ultimately, the appeal of respondent No.4 was rejected with the observation that contention of respondent No.4 that it was in possession of more land than what was on paper was required to be dealt with by the civil court, giving liberty to respondent No.4 to approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction.

10. It is stated that respondent No.4 continued to prefer a