(1) WP. 2052.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2052 OF 2010 Kondaji Wakhaji Brahmane deceased through his LR. Yohan S/o Kondaji Brahmane .. Petitioner VERSUS Markas Wakhaji Brahmane, deceased through his LRs. and others .. Respondents Mr. N.C. Garud, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. Kazi Sabahat T. Advocate for the respondent no.1(a), (c) and (d) ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 24TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Heard. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 2.11.2009 and order dated 13.1.2010 rendered by the Executing Court in the Regular Darkhast no. 396 of 2005. 2] The respondent is holder of decree for partition and separate possession. The decree was passed in suit (R.C.S. 196 of 1981). The respondent was allotted 1/2 share. The decree was sent to the Collector, Ahmednagar as required under section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure for effecting partition. (2) WP. 2052.2010 The Collector, proposed the partition and thereafter the specific order of share which was to be allotted to the respondents was described by fixing boundaries after measurement of land gat no. 228 and the Tahsildar also determined price in respect of gat no. 968 which was found to be inpartiable. The Executing Court directed the issuance of warrant of possession in respect of the land which was described by the T.I.L.R. as half share of gat no. 228. The petitioner's contention is that he was not given due opportunity by the Executing Court. He contended that the possession warrant could not be straightway issued without calling upon him to file objection. I do not agree. The decree for partition is to be executed by the Collector. The execution of such decree is a matter outside the control of the civil Court and that once the Collector heard the parties and proposed partition in a particular manner, civil Court cannot upset such arrangement, unless there is specific agreement between the parties for effecting division of the agricultural land. In this view of the matter, issuance of the possession warrant was only a formality which the executing Court has followed. No substance in the Petition, dismissed. Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp