W.P.No.118 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.118 OF 2011 Mohd.Wahiduddin Sk. Kalimoddin ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr H.I.Pathan, Advocate for petitioner Mr K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr G.R.Syed, Advocate for respondents 7 to 9 Mr Quadri Taher Ali, Advocate holding for Mr M.G.Mustafa, Advocate for respondent No.10 Respondents 5 served by paper publication CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 30th November 2011 PER COURT Heard. 2. The communication dated 23rd April 2010 by Additional Collector, Nanded to Deputy Collector (Atiyat) and Sub-Divisional Officer, Nanded illustrates of accusing the petitioner having not supplied orders of High Court dated 10.9.2001, purportedly recorded in Writ Petition No.353/1983. 3. The authority concerned, from the record, is vivid to be aware of the orders of Division Bench dated 30.8.1990. The certified copy of the writ petition was tendered and the Officer wrongly considered the same to be purported order of the High Court in Writ Petition No.353/1983. The manner, in which the matter is disposed of speaks volume about the W.P.No.118 of 2011 2 conduct of the Officer concerned, which even reflects in the affidavit record tendered on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 by Shri Dilip s/o Virpakshappa Swami, the Sub Divisional Officer, Nanded. 4. In the said affidavit in paragraph 11 it is informed that no orders are yet passed in favour of respondent or anybody and there is no finality to the decision in respect of the nature of the land, the persons concerned are at liberty to approach the Additional Collector and furnish complete information about the lands; the Additional Collector thereafter will decide the matter pursuant to direction recorded in Writ Petition No.353 of 1983 dated 30.8.1990. 5. In the light of these assertions of the affiant Dilip, the mattter is remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer, Nanded sitting under Atiyat, to decide the representation of the writ petitioner within a period frame, considering the time lapsed since 1990 in prosecuting the matter. Writ Petition disposed of. No costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) (vvr/118.11wp)