1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3246 OF 2009 Vishwanath S/o.Baburao Wanve, Age-60 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Yewalwadi, Tal.Patoda, District : Beed PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Talathi, Talathi Sajja, Patoda, Dist. Beed 2. Taluka Inspector of Land Record, Taluka Land Record Office, Patoda, Dist. Beed 3. The Tahsildar, Patoda, Dist. Beed 4. The Superintendent of Land Record, District Land Record Office, Nagar Road, Beed 5. The District Collector, Collectorate Office, Beed. 6. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai RESPONDENTS Mr.A.N.Nagargoje, h/f. Mr.L.V.Sangit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, learned AGP for respondent no.1 to 6. 2 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 01/10/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.1 to 4 to fix the boundary marks of the petitioner’s land at Survey no.485-A, situated at village Yewalwadi, Tal.Patoda, Dist. Beed as per the order dated 22/02/2001 and as per the measurement carried out on 18/05/2007. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents no.1 to 3 to submit the relevant record as demanded by respondent no.2 and 4 if available within a stipulated period, and thereafter to direct respondent no.2 to fix the boundary marks of the petitioner’s land on the basis of available record. 3. We need not dilate on the factual aspect of the case as it would suffice to state that on notice being issued to the respondents, respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply, at para no.7, it is stated that the surveyor who had measured the land on 18/05/2007 is transferred and the then Taluka Inspector of Land Record, who was holding the charge is also transferred. It is 3 stated that the deponent is holding the additional charge of The Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Patoda, Dist. Beed with effect from 11/09/2009 and it is stated that on account of the objections raised by the adjoining land owners, it is not possible to fix the boundary marks as per the earlier measurement dated 18/05/2007. At para no.8 of the affidavit in reply, it is stated that if the petitioner produces the old and new 7/12 extract of survey no.485-A and after he deposits the necessary charges for the measurement, fresh measurement would be done, and thereafter necessary steps in accordance with Law would be taken for fixing the boundary marks of the land of the petitioner. 4. In the light of the affidavit in reply, according to us nothing further survives for consideration. Shri.Nagargoje, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would deposit the charges for the measurement within 2 weeks from today. On such deposit being made by the petitioner, we direct the respondents to carry out the measurement afresh in accordance with Law within 4 weeks thereafter, and thereafter to take steps in accordance with Law as expeditiously as possible. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/OCT 2009/wp3246-09