JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner, who is widow, aged 61 years, has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the Tahasildar, Newasa thereby, cancelling the Non Agricultural (N.A.) permission dated 06.08.1992 granted in her favour, in an arbitrary manner.

3. The present case is a classic illustration of the highhandedness on the part of the officer of the State Government and that too acting at the instance of the third party and playing in the hands of such party, who despite being defeated in all rounds of litigation, is able to obtain favourable orders from the Tahasildar, Newasa against the petitioner.

4. In order to appreciate the arbitrary action of respondent No.1/Tahasildar, Newasa, it is necessary for me to refer to the brief facts in the background.

The petitioner, being the widow and being left with no source of livelihood, proposed to start traditional brick-kiln business on the property inherited by her. Since it contemplated obtaining requisite permission to convert the agricultural land into non agricultural one, she preferred an application to the Tahasildar for seeking such permission under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. By exercising the powers conferred upon the Collector and delegated to the Tahasildar, Newasa, on 06.08.1992, she was permitted to use 10 R of land out of Survey No.51 of village Karajgaon, Taluka Newasa for non agricultural purposes and the said permission contemplated that the land shall be used for the purposes for which it’s user is sanctioned and if at all, change of user is contemplated, an application shall be preferred in this regard. The activity for which the conversion was sought, was contemplated to be commenced within a period of one month and one of the clause in permission contemplated that if there is any breach of condition subject to which the permission was granted, the permission was liable to be cancelled.

The copy of the N.A. permission dated 06.08.1992 is placed on record at Exhibit-A.

5. Upon obtaining necessary permission, the petitioner commenced the activity of brick-kiln on the said land. While she was undertaking the said activity, one busy body Shri S.T.Rajguru from the said village, lodged frivolous applications against her to the various authorities alleging pollution in the village, though apart from him, not a single villager objected to the said running of brick-kiln business. This constrained the petitioner to file RCS No.27/2005 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Newasa, seeking perpetual injunction against Shri S.T. Rajguru and others. The said suit came to be decreed on 23.01.2009 and the members of Rajguru family, who were defendants in the said suit, through agents, servants, representatives or any other person on their behalf, were restrained perpetually from causing obstruction to the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the suit property and from running the brick-kiln business in the said property.

Being aggrieved by the said decree, Shri S.T. Rajguru instituted RCA No.14/2009 before the Appellate Court along with the application for stay and the proceedings landed in this Court at the instance of the present petitioner in the form of Writ Petition No.6063/2013. Recording that the Trial Court has decreed the suit, the petitioner has permission from the Tahasildar to carry out the activity of brick-kiln manufacturing on the suit land, the said permission is in force, on an earlier round, the writ petition filed by Shri S.T. Rajguru was disposed of by the Division Bench and the matter was referred to the National Green Tribunal, this Court by order dated 07.01.2014 disposed of Writ Petition No.6063/2013 by continuing the order of status-quo granted on 16.09.2013 till the disposal of the appeal and the Appellate Court was directed to expeditiously dispose of the appeal preferably within a period of six mont