ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5666 OF 2011. Smt Sushila Gopal Ghanekar and others ....Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents Mr Tejpal S. Ingale, for petitioners. Ms P.S. Cardozo, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr Yogesh Dabke for respondent No.5 Mr A.S.Gunjal for Respondent No.6. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 23rd September, 2011. P.C.:- After hearing Mr Ingale, learned counsel for petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, Ms P.S. Cardozo, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Mr Yogesh Dabke for respondent No.5 and Mr Gunjal learned counsel for Respondent No.6, for some time, the parties agree for setting aside the order dated 15.5.2004 passed by Taluka Inspector of Land Records (TILR) Kalyan, order dated 28.10.2005 passed by the Superintendent of Land Records, Thane and order dated 30.4.2007 passed by the Deputy Director Land Records, Konkan Division Mumbai and impugned order passed on 30.9.2010 by the Revenue Minister. The learned counsel submit that matter be remanded to the Taluka Inspector of the Land Record, Kalyan to reconsider the entire matter afresh in the light of partition deed ladda dated 22.11.64 between the parties to the petition and their predecessors-in-title. In view of the concession given by the parties, reasons need not be given for quashing and setting aside the impugned order. Petition is accordingly disposed of by passing the following order:- ORDER. 1. Impugned order dated 30.9.2010 passed by learned Minister for Revenue, order dated 15.5.2004 passed by Taluka Inspector of Land Records (TILR) Kalyan, order dated 28.10.2005 passed by the Superintendent of Land Records, Thane and order dated 30.4.2007 passed by the Deputy Director Land Records, Konkan Division Mumbai are quashed and set aside and matter is remanded to the Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Kalyan for reconsideration of the dispute between the parties afresh. 2. Parties to the petition are at liberty to produce additional documentary evidence and/or affidavit, if they are advised. 3. TILR Kalyan shall decide the dispute between the parties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 4. Proceeding shall be decided independently on its own merit, in accordance with law. 5. It is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the case and all points and contentions of the respective parties to be agitated before the TILR are kept expressly open. (RANJIT MORE, J.)