1 wp2922.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2922 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. R.F. Totla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korade, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 5. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19TH APRIL, 2011 Heard Advocate Mr. Totla for petitioner. He contends that challenge in this Petition is to order dated 07.03.2011 passed by the Tahsildar, Kaij directing the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records to demarket boundaries afresh immediately. He contends that such power is not available to Tahsildar and the Tahsildar has gone out of turn only to favour the respondent no.6. The attention is invited to application dated 20th January, 2011 by the respondent no.6 to Tahsildar wherein he has sought police protection for a day to remove encroachment. Advocate Mr. Totla states that the respondent no.6 has not filed any Court proceedings for removal of alleged encroachment and only because he claims to be the ex-military personnel, the respondent no. 2 and the Tahsildar tried to use force to dispossess the 2 wp2922.11 petitioner and to harass her. He invited attention even to the show cause notice issued to Yeshodabai Vishwamber Shingare dated 2nd March, 2011. 2. Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 5 states that there are no orders passed by any quasi- judicial authority and it is only internal correspondence of office which is brought before this Court by petitioner. He therefore, prays for dismissal of Writ Petition. 3. I find that the Officer incharge of police station i.e. respondent no.3 has only given show cause notice to petitioner and the petitioner can point out to that authority the correct legal position and the circumstance in which the police aid can be given. The communication by Tahsildar to Deputy Superintendent of Land Records also can not be viewed as order. 4. The petitioner claims to be in settled possession of property, and therefore, she can always take appropriate steps to protect her. At present, I find the Petition premature. With liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps including filing of representations to these authorities, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp2922.11