1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Letters Patent Appeal No.224 Of 2009 In Writ Petition No.1097 Of 2009 Prabhuappa S/o Shivanappa Garthe Deceased Per Legal Representatives : Shobha W/o Arun Garthe And Others. ... Appellants. Versus Limbabai W/o Tukaram Dhangar, Died through her legal representatives: Narhari S/o Tukaram Walekar And Others. ... Respondents. -------- Mr. Ram B Deshpande, Advocate for appellants. Mr. M.P. Tripathi, Advocate for respondent No.1-a. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2,3 and 4. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 15th OCTOBER, 2010 2 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there is no alternate remedy as observed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order. The judgment reported in Laxman R. Vajage v. Collector of Bombay, 2005 (1) Mh.L.J. 487 was relied upon by the appellants before the learned Single Judge but the ratio of the said judgment was not considered. The counsel disputes the Taba Pawati and panchanama and submits that if his signatures are appearing on those documents then it should be presumed that he had signed as a Pancha. The counsel submits that forwarding of the decree to the Collector was itself illegal as the decree was not for partition. 3) The counsel appearing for respondent No.1-a today produced a copy of affidavit-in-reply filed by him in the proceedings of the writ petition. The counsel appearing for the respondent submits that in the proceedings of Civil Revision 3 Application No.885 of 1992 the High Court directed the Civil Judge to transmit the papers for execution of the RD No.78 of 1997 to the Collector for effecting partition of the suit land. The counsel submits that there is alternate remedy available to the appellants. 4) We have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the judgment cited before us and the affidavit-in-reply filed in the proceedings of the writ petition. 5) In the facts of the case we find that the appellants have alternate remedies which could be resorted to in accordance with law. We do not find any patent illegality in the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. 6) The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (K.K. TATED, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ lpa.224.09