1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1197 OF 2010 (Sau. Manda Manohar Mohod & Anr. vs. Smt. Geetabai R. Dube & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. AUGUST 03, 2010. Heard Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Pande, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Ms. Udeshi, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel contends that precept under Section 54 of Civil Procedure Code to the Collector was essential and exercise of de-limitation could not have been undertaken in its absence. He has relied upon express provision in Section 54 for said purpose. Ms. Udeshi, learned counsel supports the same argument. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 points out that share is already identified in registered partition deed and suit was for recovery of its possession. That suit has been decreed and the identified and specified portion is to be delivered in possession of present respondent No. 1. Therefore, the order has been rightly issued to T.I.L.R. 2 With the assistance of respective counsel, I have perused the impugned order. It appears that the share to be separated and delivered to Respondent No. 1 is already identified and the execution is only for recovery of its possession. The order has been passed in those proceedings. In any case, the office of T.I.L.R. Is specialized agency functioning under State Government for such purpose and even if precept is issued to the Collector, ultimately the physical exercise is to be undertaken by that department only. No prejudice is caused to the petitioners in any way in the matter. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is, therefore, rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.