1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.684 OF 2005. Shaikh Yasin S/o Shaikh Bakshu, Age 70 years,Occ.Nil, R/o Gandheli, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Managing Officer/Tahsildar, Aurangabad. 2. The Collector, Aurangabad. (As Asstt. Settlement Commissioner, Evacuee Property, Maharashtra State, Aurangabad. 3. The Chief Settlement Commissioner for compensation Pool Properties-cum- Custodian of Evacuee Property, Maharashtra State, Vakil House, Sprott Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai. 4. The State of Maharashtra. 5. The Union of India. through Settlement Commissioner, Dept of Rehabilitation Contractor Building, Nicol Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai. ... Respondents. 2 ... Mr.S.S.Kazi, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.V.Tele, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Petition dismissed against Respondent No.5. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 16.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The petitioner alleges that he is auction purchaser in respect of a house property situated at village Gandheli. It was previously owned by one Mahboob Ali. Since said Mahboob Ali fled to Pakistan after independence of India, the house property was declared as evacuee property. The same was auctioned. The petitioner purchased the house property in the public auction for Rs.1,800/-. He deposited Rs. 360/- (Rupees three hundred sixty) immediately. He submitted applications to allow him to deposit 3 the remaining amount, from time time but there was no response by the Respondents. He alleged that he has constructed a room at the site. He alleged further that the members of the village Panchayat got removed the zinc sheets placed on the roof of the room. He contended that though he was ready and willing to deposit the remaining amount with the Settlement Commissioner-cum- Custodian of the evacuee property, yet, no action was taken. At his behest, the learned Deputy Collector held inquiry on his application. His application came to be rejected by impugned order dated 20.3.2003. Hence, the petition. 3. Heard learned counsel and leaned A.G.P. Mr.D.V.Tele, for the State. 4. What transpires from the available record is that the petitioner is auction purchaser though, sale certificate is not issued in his favour. It appears that he deposited the earnest amount within the stipulated period. He appears to have claimed ownership to the extent of 100x80 ft. open space as per recitals of his 4 complaint application dated 10.5.1990. The impugned order shows that what was sold in auction was only a house property comprising of 10 x 12 Sq. ft. The dispute regarding description of the house property can be sorted out by the learned Deputy Collector (L.R.), Aurangabad on the basis of the available record. The correspondence made by the Deputy Collector (L.R.) with the Settlement Commissioner vide letter No.2001/LR/EVP/WS/01 dated 29.9.2001 purports to show that the petitioner in the auction purchase of the house property in question there was no response from the Settlement Commissioner to the letter correspondence of the Deputy Collector (L.R.). The apathy on the part of the concerned authority would not disentitle the petitioner from seeking the ownership certificate. That apart, he is in possession of the house property in question for more than thirty (30) years and also has paid part of the consideration. In this view of the matter, his claim could be favourably considered by the learned Deputy Collector (L.R.). It appears that the application of the petitioner is 5 rejected on technical ground. 5. For the foregoing reasons, I am inclined to allow the petition. Hence,the petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The learned Deputy Collector (L.R.) shall decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner to prove his case and he may decide the question of area of the house property to which the petitioner is entitled or is in possession in part performance of the sale agreement. The Deputy Collector (L.R.) may direct the Village Panchayat to record name of the petitioner to the extent of the area of the house for which he is entitled to retain possession as a lawful claimant. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp68405