1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.591 OF 2009 1. Rambhau Shankar, Age : 66 years, 2. Mohan Shamrao, Age : 63 years, 3. Sukhadev Massu, 4. Laxman Tanaji, Age : 65 years, 5. Haribhau Bhaguji, Age : 64 years, 6. Saheba Nama, Age : 67 years, 7. Ashruba Piraji, Age : 64 years, 8. Ashruba Gina, Age : 63 years, 9. Kacharu Tanaji, Age : 57 years, 10. Ashruba Satava, Age : 55 years, 11. Satva Kabaji, Age : 63 years, 12. Sundar Piraji, Age : 66 years, 2 13. Umaji Piraji, Age : 68 years, 14. Sarjerao Gina, Age : 70 years, All Residents of Mauje Shahapur Majara, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed ..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Collector, Beed, Dist. Beed 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambejogai, Dist. Beed 4. The Tahesildar, Majalgaon, Dist. Beed 5. Bhiva Shripati Dhaej, 6. Maroti Ram Dhaej, 7. Sitaram Yadavrao Dhaej, 8. Chagan Deorao Dhaej, 9. Vittal Buaaji Dhaej, 10. Lala Bhagujui Dhaej, 11. Kondiba Kisan Dhaej, 12. Ashruba Laxman Dhaej, 13. Sitaram Janu Avchar, 14. Piraji Janu Avchar, 15. Yamaji Janu Avchar, 3 All are major, exact age could not be ascertained due to lack of correct information, All Occ.Agril. And are resident of Shahapur, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed ..RESPONDENTS Mr G.K. Thigale, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr K.G. Patil, AGP for respondents no.1 to 4; Mr Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for respondents no.5,6, 7 & 8 to 15; CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 7TH JULY, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioners, pray for quashing and setting aside order passed by the Collector, Beed, dated 23.10.2008 and other subsequent orders for measurement and demarcation, dated 13.1.2009 and the petitioners also pray for directing respondents no.1 to 4 to conduct an inquiry in respect of the actual possession in consonance with the provisions of the Government Resolution and the Govt. policy thereof. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners 4 and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents clearly discloses that a transparent inquiry was conducted and in inquiry it was found that the respondents were in possession and accordingly their possession came to be regularized. Such disputed facts cannot be gone into in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apparently it also appears that the grievance raised by the petitioners in respect of the regularization of the encroachment of the petitioners was not brought to the notice of the respondents-authorities. Since the petitioners are asking this Court to issue a writ of mandamus, it was incumbent for the petitioners to have made demand and upon refusal of the said demand by the respondents, the present petition for writ of mandamus was maintainable. However, in the peculiar facts of the present case, we grant liberty to the petitioners to point out any irregularities in respect of the regularization of the encroachment of the respondents. In the event petitioners submit such a representation, the authorities may decide it in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Rule is thus made absolute to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] 5