1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 807 OF 2006 (Jahangirkhan Karimkhan .v. State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri R.B. Dhore, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.M. Deshpande, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. Ms. S.S. Jachak, Advocate for the respondent No.5 CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. 02ND APRIL, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. The dispute is about Sheet No.5, Chalta No.6, Plot No.959 admeasuring about 298 square meters situated at Mouza Nimgaon, Taluka Nandura, District Buldana (for the sake of brevity hereinafter called as the disputed property). For the first time, in the year 1979, the Nazul Officer granted Sanad in petitioner's favour in respect of the disputed property. The petitioner constrained to file complaint before the Tahsildar in the year 1990 for removal of encroachment made by one Baliram Thakare. The Tahsildar removed the encroachment, but however directed the disputed property be kept in possession of respondent No.5, Gram Panchayat. 2 In the year 1990 itself, the respondent No.5, Gram Panchayat moved an application before the District Land Consolidation Officer for inclusion of its name in the disputed property. By the order dated 17.01.1991, the District Land Consolidation Officer included the name of the respondent No.5 in the disputed property. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Record, Amravati. The Deputy Director of Land Record by his order dated 17.09.1991 set aside the order passed by the District Land Consolidation Officer, but however declared that the disputed property as a government land. The petitioner's revision before the Hon'ble Minister of State (Revenue) also came to be dismissed and, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing of present writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Shri R.B. Dhore, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not point out any document about the petitioner's title over the disputed property. The petitioner claims possession over the disputed property since 1979 and that too, on the basis of Sanad granted by the Nazul Officer. In these circumstances, the submission of the 3 petitioner that the District Land Consolidation Officer passed order and thereby included the name of the respondent No.5, Gram Panchayat in the disputed property without hearing him, does not hold any merit. In the facts and circumstances referred above, I do not find any merit so as to interfere in my jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE *rrg.