SSK/ 1 WP/7101.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7101 OF 2011 Shri Rajesh Anilkumar Makhecha & Anr. ....Petitioners Versus The Collector, Collector Office Thane & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Kishor Patil, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R. M. Patne, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 30th August, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Patil, learned counsel and Mr.Patne, learned AGP for respective parties. 2. Prayers (a) and (b) of the petition reads as follows: “(a) Issue an appropriate Writ/Order directing the Respondent No.1, the Collector, to deal with the Representation of the Petitioners dated 17.04.2010 and redress the grievance made therein, in accordance with law. (b) Issue an appropriate Writ/Order for quashing and setting aside the Order dated 12.12.2006 passed by the Tahsildar directing to record the name of Respondent-5 in the Books of record to the extend of 40 R in Sr.No.186/1, Kolhset, Thane.” SSK/ 2 WP/7101.11 So far as prayer (b) is concerned, the petitioners have a remedy by way of an appeal under Section 74 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and therefore, this prayer cannot be considered in the writ petition. So far as the petitioners’ representation dated 17th April, 2010 is concerned, the Collector has directed the Sub- Divisional Officer to make an enquiry. The petitioners were also directed to contact the said Sub-Divisional Officer. The petitioners said representation, therefore, will be gone into by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The petitioners cannot say that their representation should be decided by the Collector only. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the petition so as to enable me to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)