1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. MISC. PETITION NO.61 OF 2009 IN MISC.PETITION NO.42 OF 1999 Ajay Balwantrai Parekh & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus Manisha @ Vidya Anil Nilekar & Ors. ...Respondents. ....... Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Kalpesh Joshi i/b.Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the Petitioners. Ms.R.P. Phadke for Respondent No.1 and Petititioner in MPT 42/99. Mr. R.V. Govilkar for the Administrator General. Mr.Sandesh Bhosale for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ...... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. September 17, 2009. P.C.: The First, Second and Third Respondents are the heirs and legal representatives of Vimala Janardhan Gadre who died on 20th January 1974. The First Respondent filed a petition for the grant of Letters of Administration which was allowed by this Court on 21st June 1995. The First Respondent had moved Misc. Petition on 13th April 1999 in this Court seeking the appointment of the Administrator General of the State of Maharashtra (the Fourth Respondent) for administering the property of the deceased. The application was 2 allowed by an order dated 23rd June 2006. In pursuance of the order, the Administrator General took notional possession of the property comprised of land at Kihim in the Taluka of Alibag comprised of Gat No.994, Hissa No.A and Gat No.994, Hissa No.B together with structures standing thereon. The Petitioner acquired the property which is more particularly described in Exhibit-A under a registered sale deed executed by the First, Second and Third Respondents on 2nd December 2004. Before this Court, it was conceded by the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the First Respondent that when a Misc.Petition was moved before the Court for appointment of the Fourth Respondent for administering the property of the deceased, the Court was not informed that the property mentioned in Exhibit-A had already been sold to the Petitioner under a registered sale deed on 2nd December 2004. This position has not been disputed before the Court. In these circumstances, the relief that has been sought in the petition is for the revocation of the Letters of Administration granted to the Fourth Respondent by the order dated 23rd June 2006. Alternately, relief has been sought to the effect that the order dated 23rd June 2006 should be clarified so as to exclude the property 3 described in Exhibit-A to the Schedule from the scope of the grant. The Administrator General is before the Court in person and is also represented by Counsel. Between the Petitioners, First, Second and Third Respondents and the Administrator General it is common ground that the property in question has been duly conveyed for consideration to the Petitioners under a registered sale deed and that possession was handed over to the Petitioners. On the previous date of the hearing, the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the First Respondent sought an adjournment to take instructions and to file a further affidavit. An affidavit dated 17th September 2009 has been filed by the First Respondent stating that the order dated 23rd June 2006 may be modified to the extent of the property situated at Kihim by the deletion thereof. Since the property at Kihim, more particularly described in Exhibit-A has already been sold by the heirs and legal representatives, namely, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to the petition, the Misc. Petition shall stand disposed of with the direction that the appointment of the Administrator General of the State of Maharashtra, the Fourth Respondent, shall not operate with respect to the property more particularly described in Exhibit-A and that the 4 order dated 23rd June 2006 passed by the Court shall stand modified in the aforesaid terms. However, the Administrator General would be entitled to recover his costs, charges and expenses from the estate of the deceased in accordance with law. .....