1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6327 OF 2005 1. Bansi Bhau Mahadik and others .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondent Shri S. L. Bhapkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri N. B. Patil, A. G. P. for the Respondents. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 22nd July, 2009. ORAL ORDER [ Per B. R. Gavai, J.] : 1. The court notice issued to petitioner No. 6 is returned unserved, since he is reported to be dead. No steps are taken for bringing legal representatives of deceased petitioner No. 6 on record. The petition, therefore, stands abated, so far as petitioner No. 6 is concerned. 2. In so far as prayer clauses A and B are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners have already filed reference. In any event we are afraid that it would not be 2 permissible for this Court to consider prayer clause "A" in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which requires evidence to be lead to substantiate the claim. 3. The petitioners have rightly filed the reference for seeking said relief. So far prayer clause "B" is concerned it is in respect of rental compensation, in respect of which the petitioners would be at liberty to make representation to Collector. In the event any of the petitioners still feel aggrieved by the decision of the Collector on their representation, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach this Court again. The petition is therefore, disposed of with aforesaid observation. 4. It is made clear that if any representation is made to the Collector, the Collector shall decide the said representation within a period of six weeks from the date of its receipt in accordance with law. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/July 09