( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6672 OF 2010 Ramhari s/o Pandurang Bankar and others PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. Z.M. Pathan, advocate for the petitioners. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 27th July, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The Court Commissioner was appointed on the basis of application filed by the petitioners. The report of T.I.L.R. was placed on record. Thereafter, the petitioners filed again application at Exh-61 (Exh-G to the petition) seeking re- measurement of the land bearing Gat No. 2294 to D.I.L.R. The petitioners asserted that the fixation of the boundaries as per the Phalni record was necessary. The application came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 22nd June, 2010. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that no say was obtained from the respondents No. 5 to 9 (defendants) and, ( 2 ) therefore, the averments in the application could be regarded as non-traversed. Without hearing the respondents, such order has been passed. He also submitted that the petitioners were not heard and the impugned order was rendered hastily and as such, is unsustainable. 4. The petition does not disclose any grievance as regards absence of opportunity of hearing to the petitioners while deciding the said application (Exh-61). It is not the concern of the petitioners as to whether any say was obtained from the respondents or not. The respondents are not aggrieved by the impugned order and as such, the omission to obtain their say on the application of the petitioners cannot be regarded as sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order is rendered in the exercise of discretion of the trial Court, which is not reflective any perversity as such. Petition is dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp6672-10