1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.288 of 2007 In Writ Petition No.2450 of 1995 (Decided) (Nagorao Shankarrao Bhange, through LRs. v. State of Mah. and another) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri O.Y. Kashid, Advocate for Appellants. Shri A.M. Deshpande, AGP for R- 1 to 3. CORAM : A.P. Deshpande & R.C. Chavan, JJ. DATE : 10th January, 2008 It is undisputed that an order of restoration of land in favour of tribal Jamunabai has assumed finality in earlier round of litigation. After the death of Jamunabai, the Tahsildar passed an order in favour of one Champat Atmaram. The matter was thereafter carried to the higher authorities and ultimately to this Court by filing a writ petition at the behest of the present appellants. Strangly enough, the person claiming to the heir of deceased Jamunabai, in whose favour the orders were passed by the authorities, has been impleaded as a party respondent. Partly allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge directed only a limited enquiry to be made in the matter, as the present appellants contended that Champat Atmaram is not a legal heir of deceased Jamunabai. It is this order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is challenged in this Letters Patent Appeal. We do not find anything wrong in the order of the learned 2 Single Judge. The order to some extent grants premium to the appellants by directing an enquiry as to whether Champat Atmaram is a legal heir of deceased Jamunabai or not, without impleading him as party-respondent. Thus, the appeal has no merit. It is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE pdl