1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1420 Of 2009 Arvindkumar S/o.Meghashyamrao Palkar PETITIONER VERSUS The District Collector, Aurangabad and others RESPONDENTS Mr.G.N.Chincholkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.V.H.Dighe, learned AGP for respondent no.1 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 04/09/2009 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing respondents to implement the judgment and order dated 17/11/2003 passed by the Nayab Tahsildar, Phulambri. On notice being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply and in the affidavit in reply at para no.4 it is stated thus : I most respectfully say and submit that it is necessary to point out that as per the order dated 17/11/2003 issued by the Naib Tahsildar, the authorities have already taken necessary steps and prepared the 7/12 extract of gat no.47 by which the 2 name of the petitioner is entered in the 7/12 extract by Mutation entry no.771 on dated 17/11/2004. Hereto annexed and marked at Exh.R-1 is the true and correct copy of the said M.E.No.771 and 7/12 Extract of G.No.47. I most respectfully say and submit that as per the order of the Naib Tahsildar, the steps were taken and 7/12 extract was also prepared which is already annexed at Exhibit R-1 above. I say that however, in the said 7/12 extract, the specific area was not mentioned in the column of ownership. I say and submit that now, the fresh 7/12 extract is prepared, which indicates the area in ownership of the petitioner as well as the area in ownership of legal heirs of the brother of the petitioner. Fresh 7/12 extract of G.No.47 is annexed herewith and marked at Exhibit R-2. The petitioner has suppressed this material fact from this Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, it is necessary to give few facts relating to the present petition as under. 2. In the light of statement made by the respondents that the order passed by the Nayab Tahsildar dated 17/11/2003 has been complied with, according to us no further relief can be granted to the petitioner. This petition is accordingly sans merit and is therefore dismissed accepting the statement made by the respondents that the order of the Nayab Tahsildar has been complied with. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEP 2009/wp1420-09