1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7277/2009. (Dattatraya Pangavane Vs. The Collector, Ahmednagar and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Parag V.Barde, Adv. for petitioner; Mrs.SD Shelke, AGP for Resp.Nos. 1 to 4; Mr.VS Kadam, ADv. for Resp.No.5; Mr.SS Kulkarni, Adv. for Resp.Nos. 8 to 23. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 28 th October, 2010. ... 1) Heard. 2) The grievance of the writ petitioner is, notice dated 3rd October, 2006 (Annexure-D to the petition) excludes the petitioners though the petitioner's father is plaintiff in RCS No.413/1963, for which after the decree, Regular Darkhast No.7/1971 is moved and the properties are to be partitioned by the revenue authorities. 3) On perusal of the order, I find indeed there is reference of Regular Darkhast No.7/1971 by the learned Tahsildar, however, conspicuously names of the petitioners or original plaintiff are missing from the array of the parties. 2 4) Since the writ petitioner has legitimate claim in the properties to be partitioned, it is imperative that the learned Tahsildar or Collector shall hear the petitioner in terms of Section 85 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The petitioner or the respondents in the writ petition shall furnish necessary copies to the learned Tahsildar, as some papers of Regular Darkhast or other documents are missing from the file of the revenue authorities. 5) All the parties shall appear before the learned Tahsildar, Kopargaon pursuant to the notice dated 3rd October, 2006 on 15.11.2010. The Revenue authorities, considering age of the matter including age of the parties, shall endeavour to complete the proceedings within six months thereafter. 6) The above directions are issued with clear indication, as both the learned Counsel illustrated that there is no other legal impediment between the parties litigating to execution of the Regular Darkhast. 7) Writ Petition disposed of in above terms. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/