1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7035 OF 2006 Rajaram Shankar Atpadkar .. Petitioner. Vs. Namdeo Sawala Atpadkar & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.V.V.Pai for the petitioner. Mr.Siddharth Ronge i/b G.S.Godbole for respondent no.5. Mr.K.B.Sonawane for respondent nos.1, 2, 4 and 6. Mr.R.M.Patne A.G.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATED : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. By consent, the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. This petition is directed against the order dated 24.8.2006 passed by the Additional Collector, Satara, by which the appeal filed by respondent nos.1 to 16 has been allowed and the matter has been remanded to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry. These proceedings arise from the decree dated 18.8.2000 passed by the civil court in regular civil suit No.81 of 1989. The suit was filed by the petitioner and respondent on.17 for 2 partition and separate possession of their share in the joint family property. After the suit was decreed the papers were forwarded for effecting partition to revenue authorities. The Tahsildar, accordingly, effected partition and executed possession receipt in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land allotted to their share. That order was carried in appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the appeal, filed by respondent nos.1 to 16, vide his order dated 22.8.2005. Against this order, respondent nos.1 to 16 had filed appeal under section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. I have perused the impugned order dated 24.8.2006. The only contention that was urged before the Additional Collector by respondent nos.1 to 16 was that the Tahsildar effected partition without directing the parties to bring on record the heirs and legal representatives of Dnyanu Sakharam Aatpadkar and Anna Arjun Aatpadkar, who were respondent nos.3 and 4 in the appeal. Admittedly, both these respondents were dead when the partition was effected. It is pertinent to note that till this date the heirs and legal representatives of Dnyanu Aatpadkar and Anna Aatpadkar have not made any grievance about the partition and/or challenged the partition effected by the Tahsildar. The order of Sub- Divisional Officer was challenged solely on the ground that the partition was effected without bringing the heirs and legal 3 representatives on record of the deceased respondents. This has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 16. Even before this court he has not raised any other contention. It is not the case of respondent nos.1 to 16 that no share in the joint family property, as per the decree, was given to the deceased - respondent nos.3 and 4 and/or to their heirs and legal representatives. It is against this backdrop the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 24.8.2006 cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. Order accordingly Rule is made absolute in terms of this order. No costs. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)