(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 11546 OF 2010 Market Committee, Kallam, Through its Secretary, Suryakant s/o. Chandrakant Chavan, Age : 51 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Kallam, Taluka : Kallam, District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus Madhav Sheshadri Kulkarni, Age : 70 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. House No. 3-3-65, Kutbiguda, Hyderabad (A.P.), and others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.M. Patil Beedkar, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 3 to 8. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.2. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 11TH JANUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. The judgment debtor / Market Committee is before this Court, contending that in view of the earlier orders passed in the matter and position which is apparent from the said order dated 2nd May 1969, read with map at Exhibit 25, the execution can be permitted to proceed further without disturbing its possession over 8 Acres 18 Gunthas of land. It is urged that after this Court disposed of Writ Petition on 30th June 2010, ignoring this mandate, the land acquired by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (For short, herein after referred to as "APMC") is sought to be taken in execution proceedings and its possession is being restored to decree holder 2. Mr. P.R. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that the judgment of this Court, dated 30th June 2010, in Writ Petition No. 1971/2007 is not accepted by the APMC and the Special Leave Petition filed against it, is pending before the Honourable Apex Court. (3) 3. Mr. D.R. Korde, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent no.2, submits that as per earlier orders delivered by appellate court and in favour of State Government, land in excess of 8.81 Acres is in possession of the petitioner / APMC. 4. Mr. M.M. Patil Beedkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 3 to 8, on the other hand, states that effort is to misdirect the entire inquiry. He contends that it was never defence of the APMC that out of Survey No. 107, any land was acquired for Barshi-Parli Road. He states that a new defence, that land admeasuring 1.13 Acres from the said survey number is acquired for the said road, has been taken and because of that defence, again re-verification has been sought. 5. I find that in Writ Petition No. 1971/2007, the order dated 29th November 1993, passed by the executing court, was questioned by the present respondent no.1 / decree holder. This Court has, after appreciating entire material produced before it, found contention of the APMC misconceived and the petition came to be allowed with a direction to the executing court to expedite final disposal of Regular Darkhast. Even time limit of 4 months was given for that purpose. In the process, in paragraph 6, this Court has noticed that the order passed earlier, appointing (4) court commissioner, was challenged by the APMC in Civil Revision Application No. 265/1986. The High Court, while rejecting that Civil Revision Application, found that the executing court was correct and map relied upon by the decree holder was duly proved. The appointment of another court commissioner was not necessary. In this background, the observation, that land was also acquired for Barshi-Parli road, was raised for the first time, has come on record. This Court has found that there was no tangible reason for the executing court to appoint DILR in order to locate area covered by Barshi-Parli road and the position of the said road in relation to Survey No. 107. It is specifically found that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. Only subsequent development after this judgment dated 30th June 2010 is, filing of Special Leave Petition by the APMC before the Honourable Apex Court. There are no other subsequent developments. 6. It is obvious that the petitioners cannot expect this Court to go behind the order / judgment dated 30th June 2010, in Writ Petition No. 1971/2007. I, therefore, do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity with the impugned order passed by the executing court. The executing court is merely proceeding further on lines as per judgment dated 30th June 2010. (5) 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Needless to mention, that the ad interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp11546