( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6342 OF 2008 Krishnaji Sadashiv Deshpande PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another RESPONDENTS .... Mr. V.G. Mete, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for the respondent No. 1/State. Mr. M.M. Patil (Beedkar), advocate for the respondent No. 2. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 25th June, 2010] PER COURT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29th October, 1991, passed by the learned Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Osmanabad, in file No. 1990-Inam- CR-28. 2. Heard learned counsel. ( 2 ) 3. By the impugned order, the learned Deputy Collector granted permission to the respondent No. 2 for alienation of lands Gat No. 535, 536 and 544 situated at village Kasbe Tadwale. The case of the petitioner is that the permission could not have been granted because the lands have been vested in the Government due to failure of the Vatandars to deposit the occupancy price. The petitioner is totally unconcerned with agricultural lands bearing Gat No. 535 and 536. It appears, however, that he is concerned with land Gat No. 544 and dispute about factum of possession in respect of the said land is raised by the respondent No. 2. The competent authority has sanctioned mutation entry in name of the petitioner. In another writ petition (W.P. No. 3182/1998), such a dispute is duly considered by this Court. It also appears from the copy of similar order, passed in favour of the petitioner that he too is Vatandar in respect of adjoining land Gat No. 543 and permission for alienation thereof is secured by him from the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms). In other words, he and the respondent No. 2 are in pari delicto position in the eye of law. Needless to say, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order to the extent of the lands bearing Gat Nos. 535 and 536. The petition deserves to be dismissed to such extent. ( 3 ) 4. So far as land Gat No. 544 is concerned, the impugned order will have to be varied in view of the fact that name of the petitioner is mutated as a result of the enquiry conducted in the year 1990 and he was found in possession of the land Gat No. 544 to the extent of half share claimed by the respondent No. 2. It is thus explicit that the land to the extent of half share of the respondent No. 2 cannot be alienated without holding proper enquiry by making the petitioner a party to such proceedings. 5. In the result, the petition is partly allowed, only to the extent of land Gat No. 544 and to that extent, the impugned order is set aside, with direction to hold de novo enquiry if the respondent No. 2 would apply afresh for the permission to alienate the said land and would join the petitioner as party to such proceedings. As far as the remaining part of the impugned order whereby alienation permission is granted in respect of lands Gat No. 535 and 536 is concerned, the petition is dismissed. The respondent No. 2 is at liberty to challenge the order which is passed in favour of the petitioner whereby alienation permission and occupancy ( 4 ) rights are granted to him in respect of land Gat No. 543 , or any other land. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp6342-08