1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.966 OF 2009 (Shantidevi d/o Ramkisan Hardeniya vs. State and others) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : MARCH 16, 2009 Heard Shri Mundra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs. Bodade, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. The petition is directed against the order dated 27.1.2009 passed by the respondent no.3 Sub- Registrar, Class II, Bhandara. Shri Mundra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that in view of decision of this Court in Sundarsons and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 332), the respondent no.3 should not have insisted upon production of `no objection certificate' from the Collector before registering Sale Deed since issue in this regard is concluded by the said decision of this Court. It is contended that petitioner has submitted application 2 in this regard dated 19.1.2009 before the respondent no.3 wherein above referred facts were mentioned. However, the respondent no.3 has not given any reasons in the impugned communication for rejecting the request of the petitioner made in the said application. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned communication may be quashed and set aside and respondent no.3 may be directed to re-consider the application dated 19.1.2009 in accordance with law within a stipulated period. Mrs. Bodade, learned Assistant Government Pleader does not dispute that the respondent no.3 did not give reasons in the impugned communication about rejection of the claim of the petitioner made in the application dated 19.1.2009. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned respective Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. In the circumstances, it will be appropriate to dispose of the petition by issuing following directions : The respondent no.3 is directed to re-consider the application of the petitioner dated 19.1.2009 on its own merits as well as in the light of the attaining circumstances including above referred decision of this Court and decide the same by giving a reasoned order within a period of four weeks from 3 the date of communication of this order. Needless to mention that the impugned order dated 27.1.2009 shall not come in the way of respondent no.3 to re-consider the application of the petitioner, dated 19.1.2009. JUDGE JUDGE khj