1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1064 OF 2009 1. Smt.Sushilabai Shrirang Jagtap Age : 60 years, Occ : Agri., & Household, R/o Nivdunga, Taluka Jafrabad, District Jalna. 2. Smt.Kamalabai Tejrao Jagtap Age : 45 years, Occ : Agri., & Household, R/o Nivdunga, Taluka Jafrabad, District Jalna. 3. Bapurao Vishwanath Jagtap Age : 60 years, Occ : Agri., & Household, R/o Nivdunga, Taluka Jafrabad, District Jalna. ..Petitioners -VERSUS- 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad (Copy to be served on Government Pleader, High Court of Judicature of Bombay bench at Aurangabad). 2. The Additional Collector, Jalna, District Jalna. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jalna. 4. The Tahsildar, Jafrabad, District Jalna. 5. Anil Shankarlal Gupta Age : 45 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Nivdunga, Taluka Jafrabad, District Jalna. ..Respondents 2 ......... Mrs.M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioners. Mr.T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr.K.F. Shingare, Advocate for respondent no.5. ........ (CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE,J.) DATE : 15th June, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Petition challenges the order dated 31.12.2008 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, confirming the order dated 21.08.2007 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalna and also the order dated 30.04.2008 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Jalna. The matter is remanded back to the Tahsildar, Jafrabad, Dist. Jalna, with a direction to conduct thorough enquiry into the case and give sufficient opportunity of hearing and giving evidence to all the concerned parties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the provisions of Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code regarding the settlement of boundary disputes is not at all attracted in the present case. However, looking to the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners and it is open for the petitioners to approach the Tahsildar, make the pleadings, lead evidence and establish their case. It is the order of 3 remand, which is challenged, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. 3. In the result, there is no substance in the instant petition and same is dismissed. It is expected that the Tahsildar be expedite the proceedings. (R.K. DESHPANDE) JUDGE gas/wp1064.09