wp7045.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7045 of 2009 Narsing s/o Laxman Mote & another .. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. A.V. Patil, advocate holding for Mr. V.D. Gunale, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.P. More, AGP for the State. Mr. G.M. Chincholikar, advocate for respondent nos. 4 and 5. Mr. S.V. Kulkarni, advocate for respondent nos. 6 and 7. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 27 th JANUARY, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Petitioners are raising exception to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad dated 9 th March, 2009 whereby the appellate authority has confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Latur dated 4 th May 1994. 2 An application came to be presented by the legal heirs of one wp7045.09 2 Laxman s/o Narsu i.e. petitioner claiming that their father was Vatandar of the disputed lands. The lands were never leased in favour of Kashinath, father of respondent nos. 2 and 3. However, respondents got the mutation entries sanctioned in their favour illegally. Inams have been abolished by virtue of provisions of Inam Abolition Act and the lands shall be deemed to have been vested in the State Government. Petitioners also contend that on issuance of ownership certificate in favour of Kashinath, he got the sale deed registered in his favour by forging the signature of father of the petitioners / original applicants. Respondents herein have no entitlement to continue in possession over the property and as such petitioners / original applicants claim restoration of possession of property. 3 The application was opposed by the respondents by raising several objections including entertainability of the application. 4 On perusal of papers, it transpires that on abolition of inams, as the father of respondents was found to be possessed of the property on the notified date, certificate as contemplated by section 38(5) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has been issued. Certificate issued under section 38(5) has never been challenged by the petitioners and wp7045.09 3 the same has attained finality. Contentions raised by the petitioners / original applicants that the lands were never leased in favour of Kashinath and that Kashinath got executed sale-deed by forging the signature of father of the petitioners has not been substantiated. The lower authorities have adopted proper approach and rightly rejected the application tendered by the petitioners which order has been confirmed by the appellate authority. In exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for in the instant petition. Petition is devoid of substance hence stands rejected. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb