The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the authorities to implement court orders and the petitioner's right to seek relief despite the existence of alternate remedies due to the authorities' failure to perform their statutory duty.

JUDGMENT

Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard with the consent of the parties.

2. Since common question of law and facts is involved in both these petitions, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Writ Petition No. 3974 of 2020 is filed for following reliefs-

B) Record and proceedings in Ceiling Case No. 29/1964 be called for;

C) By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 may be directed to cancel the remark 'Surplus Land' and 'Government Land' in M.E. Nos. 620 and 621 in connection with the lands which the petitioner is entitled to hold after the surplus lands are already been handed over to the landlords under their right to resume;

D) appropriate action for contempt may be taken against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for not complying the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 2152 of 1989.

E) The Judgment and Order at Exhibit-I, Exhibit-J and Exhibit-K passed by the Learned Sub Divisional Officer, Shirdi, Learned additional Collector, ahmednagar and the Learned additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik, be quashed and set aside.

4. Writ Petition No. 3978 of 2020 is filed for following reliefs-

B) Record and proceedings in Ceiling Case No. 29/1964 be called for;

C) By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 may be directed to cancel the remark 'not transferable' in Mutation Entry No. 498 in connection with the lands which the petitioner is entitled to hold after the surplus lands are already been handed over to the landlords under their right to resume.

D) appropriate action for contempt may be taken against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for not complying the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 2152 of 1989.

E) The Judgment and Order at Exhibit-H dated 29.5.2017 passed by the Learned Sub Divisional Officer, Shirdi and order dated 04.07.2018 Learned additional Collector at Exhibit-I and the Judgment and Order at Exhibit-J dated 10.01.2019 passed by the additional Commissioner be quashed and set aside.

5. The petitioner is the legal heir of original land holder Mahadev Boravake. The land holder had filed return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) act, 1961 (for short 'said act'), before the Collector, ahmednagar on 14.07.1962, on the basis of which Inquiry No. Ceiling-KOP/29/1964 was held by the District Deputy Collector, Sangamner, who decided the application by judgment and order dated 30.06.1966 (for short 'order of 30. 06.1966'), thereby holding that the land holder is holding about 301 acres 21 Gunthas of dry crop land. Before the District Deputy Collector, Sangamner, the holder had exercised his choice and accordingly, the District Deputy Collector, Sangamner directed that the lands as per the choice of the holder should be retained with him.

6. The holder being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Deputy Collector, Sangamner so also other land holders whose lands were declared surplus filed different appeals before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune. The Tribunal by common judgment confirmed the decision of the District Deputy Collector, Sangamner and directed that the arithmetical mistake committed in converting Baramati (Bagayati) land into dry crop land be corrected by correcting the respective notifications.

7. The decision of the Tribunal was challenged by some of the landlords before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court up held the order of District Deputy Collector and some of the petitions were directed to be decided by the learned Single Judge.

8. One of the landlord Smt. Sushilabai Nagesh Chandwadkar filed Civil appeal No. 1410/1974 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the High Court that landlords are entitled to resume only of the land. Thus, it is clear that the order passed by the District Deputy Collector, Sangamner dated 30. 06.1966 is confirmed by t