D.B. Deshpande, J.
1. This is one of the few cases which disclose the utter negligence on the part of the concerned persons in the office of Tahsildar and that is why the respondent No. 1 was required again to move the Tahsildar's office for giving a relief and it arises out of the following facts :---
The petitioners before me are the legal heirs and representatives of original landholder. One Jakya, the husband of the present respondent No. 1 was a tenant of Survey No. 2 admeasuring 9 acres and 6 gunthas and Survey No. 41 admeasuring 13 acres and 29 gunthas. Respondent No. 2 Govinda was a tenant of the original landholder in respect of Survey No. 209. Satappa was the original owner. A final declaration under section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was made in favour of Jakya for the entire land admeasuring 22 acres and 35 gunthas. Sattappa filed his objection-petition on 7th April, 1959. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal allowed the objection-petition and final declaration in favour of Jakya was reduced only to the area of 2 acres and 25 gunthas and that too from Survey No. 2. Sattappa was dissatisfied with this order also and so he went in appeal. On 20th April, 1962, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal for fresh enquiry. Sattappa felt aggrieved by this order also and he went to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in a revision. On 16-9-83 the Revenue Tribunal partly allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for finding out the total area with the landholder after deducting the area of Survey No. 209 in favour of Govinda and that was how the matter went back to the Tahsildar's Office.
2. Thereafter nothing happened and the papers remained in cold storage for about eight years and more. On 10th November, 1971, the present respondent No. 1 gave an application to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal that the matter was pending since long and she should be allotted more land so as to complete the total area of 22 acres and 35 gunthas. On 31st December, 1971, the learned Tahsildar rejected this application observing that after a lapse of nine years he could not revive the matter without the permission from the Collector and so he rejected this application. Thereafter also nothing happened for about seven years. On 10th April, 1979, the present respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector against the order, dated 31st December 1971. The Deputy Collector allowed the appeal on 25th February, 1980. The petitioners went in revision to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the revision was dismissed, on 14-9-81. This order is being challenged in this writ petition.
3. Mr. A.H. Vaishnav, appearing for the petitioners urged before me that there was extraordinary negligence on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and according to him, the authorities below have shown undue sympathy to respondent No. 1 in resuscitating the old matter condoning the delay. He further urged that the Tahsildar had no right in view of section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. He urged also that there was a bar of limitation under section 32 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and according to him, delay should not have been condoned. In my opinion, all these questions do not at all arise for my consideration. It is clear from the record that the matter is still pending before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal in pursuance of the order of remand, dated 16-9-63. It cannot be said that the matter is decided by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal after the remand. Mr. Vaishnav tried to contend that the said matter was closed and for this purpose he placed reliance upon the observations of Tahsildar in his order, dated 31-1-1971. Therein the learned Tahsildar has observed as follows :
'It is clear from the judgment of Tribunal and Deputy Collector that this was challenged and the case was remanded to the original Court of Tribunal for enquiry whether this transfer is before the notified date or after the notified date or after the notified date under section 38-E of H.T. Act and pass order accordingly the last date of judgment of M.R.T. is 16-9-1963 and since that date neither parties, tenant or landholder appeared in the original Court nor any further enquiry is to be made and the case was closed.'
It is clear that this is only the inference of the Tahsildar that the case was closed. He has not mentioned therein that there was a previous order that the case was closed and the case could not be closed also because the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and that is why it was incumbent upon the Agricultural Land Tribunal to take out the papers from the record and to decide this case. In fact, the petition dated 10th November, 71, filed by the present respondent No. 1 should only be treated as a reminder to the Agricultural Land Tribunal to take out the papers and to decide the matter. At this stage it may be mentioned that Mr. Vaishnav, appearing for the petitioners, contended that in her petition, dated 10th November, 71, the present respondent No. 1 was asking for some more relief than that ordered to be enquired into by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Petitioners are certainly entitled to resist this application if in reality any such more claim is made by her in the said petition and the petitioner can insist that the Agricultural Lands Tribunal should decide the matter in pursuance of the remand-order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in the light of the observations made by the Revenue Tribunal.
4. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged but there will be no order as to costs.