JUDGMENT : 1. The learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to delete respondent no. 4(a). Leave granted at the risk of the petitioners. Necessary correction to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. This petition will have to be allowed on a short count. The brief facts are that there is a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act being Land Acquisition Case No.62/1995 in which the petitioners raised an issue of tenancy. In the year 2006, the issue was referred to the Mamlatdar and that reference is registered as reference no.3/2006. Subsequently, there was a Civil Suit between the parties in which on a similar contention being raised, the issue of tenancy was referred to the learned Mamlatdar on the basis of which reference no.1/2008 is registered. Both these reference cases were proceeding simultaneously before the learned Mamlatdar in which common evidence was recorded. It so happened that there was an order passed in reference no.1/2008 deciding on the sequence of the cross-examination by the parties, who were having a common interest. This order was challenged in an appeal before the learned Deputy Collector in which there was stay of proceedings of the reference no.1/ 2008. In the meanwhile, reference No.3/2006 was dismissed in default by order dated 21/ 09/2011. This was challenged by the petitioners before the Deputy Collector in which the present respondent no.1 was the only party. The Deputy Collector allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated 9/11/2012. This was in turn challenged by the respondent no.1 in tenancy revision application no.45/2012 before the Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal by judgment and order dated 15/11/2013, had allowed the revision application thereby restoring the order passed by the learned Mamaltdar. This is how the matter comes to this Court. 4. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it transpires that the appeal arising out of the order passed in reference no.1/2008 is decided and the said reference is pending before the Mamlatdar. The issue in Reference No.3/2006 and 1/ 2008 is the same. It is further significant to note that both these references were proceeding together in which common evidence was recorded. The issue in Reference No.3/2006 and 1/ 2008 is the same. It is further significant to note that both these references were proceeding together in which common evidence was recorded. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were under a bona-fide belief that because the proceedings in reference No.1/2008 were stayed, the reference No.3/2006 would not proceed. Be that as it may, having regard to the overall circumstances, I do not find that the order of dismissal, of reference no.3/2006 can be sustained. The learned Counsel for the petitioners undertakes to bring the legal heirs of respondents no.2 & 3 on record before the learned Mamlatdar. 5. The petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order passed by the Mamlatdar on 15/11/2013 is hereby set aside. Reference No.3/2006 is restored to the file of the learned Mamlatdar. The Mamlatdar shall proceed to decide the said reference along with reference No.1/2008. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.