1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4092 OF 2008 (Narayan Ramchandra Kakad vs. State and others) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 17, 2009 Heard Shri Mundhada, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. Before we consider the case of the petitioner, it is necessary to consider the prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the petition, which read thus : (a) By an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, declare that the rights of petitioner out of Nazul Sheet No.21 from out of Nazul Plot No.26, admeasuring about 12400 sq.mt. situated within the limits of Municipal Council, Anjangaon Surji, District Amravati is that of Occupant Class I under the provisions of Section 29 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966; (b) By an appropriate writ, order and/or direction including a will of Mandamus, direct the respondent no.2 – the Collector, Amravati and the respondent 2 No.4 – Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Taluq Anjangaon, District Amravati to make necessary correction in the revenue records, including the Property Registration Card of out of Nazul Sheet No.21, from out of Nazul Plot No.26, admeasuring about 12400 sq.mt. situated within the limits of Municipal Council, Anjangaon Surji, District Amravati of the petitioner by changing the nature of right from Category `B' to category `A', i.e. from Occupant Class II to Occupant Class I.” The plain reading of above prayer clauses shows that this Court cannot consider the said prayers while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is seeking declaration in respect of his rights regarding Nazul Sheet No.21, admeasuring 12400 square metres within the limits of Municipal Council, Anjangaon Surji, District Amravati relying on certain documents. Similarly, the direction sought by the petitioner in prayer clause (b) would depend upon the status of the petitioner vis-a-vis land in question and, therefore, the direction sought in prayer clause (b) also cannot be considered at this stage. The petitioner has also made an application for grant of no objection certificate to the Collector in view of provisions of Rule 44(1) of the Maharashtra Registration Rules, 1961, which is pending with the Collector. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we are not inclined to 3 show any indulgence in the matter. However, it is open for the petitioner to pursue the said application pending before the Collector. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj