1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.947 OF 1985 1.Govinda Joti Gaikwad, deceased through heirs and legal representatives- 1A. Hausabai Govind Gaikwad & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. 1.The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.II, Satara & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.A.D.Thorat i/b. R.A.Thorat,for Petitioners. Mr.S.N.Bhosale, AGP for Respondent nos.1 & 3. Mr.M.N.Dhamal, for Respondent no.3. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED: 3rd November,2009 P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 17.9.1984 passed in Administrative Appeal. In that appeal, the petitioners challenged acquisition of their lands for rehabilitation of 2 project affected persons. Their principal case was that before issuance of Section 4 Notification, their lands were partitioned amongst the members of the family in the year 1958 itself. The Collector, Satar decided the Administrative Appeal and has held that it cannot be believed that there was partition of the lands in the year 1958. He has held that by Watap Yadi on which reliance is placed, partition cannot be said to have been brought about because if the partition is by a written document then it is compulsorily registerable. The Watap Yadi is, admittedly, not registered. Before the Collector, it appears that it was the case of the petitioners that certain alienations took place of the lands after the partition and those alienations were made by the persons in whose favour the land was allotted. But the Collector observed in the order that there was no evidence produced before him about those alienations. Perusal of the petition shows that in the petition there was no averments about any alienations taking place of the lands after partition. In our opinion, in the absence of any avernments in the petition,the 3 aspect of alienations after the partition cannot be looked into. If one goes by the record, there is nothing on record to show that the order passed by the Collector which is impugned in the petition is in any way wrong. We do not find any substance in the petition. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. 2. At the request of the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners, it is directed that the interim order which is presently operating shall continue to operate for a period of six weeks, subject to filing an undertaking by the petitioners in this Court within a period of two weeks from today, undertaking therein to give vacant possession of the suit lands to the Authorities, in case they fail to obtain appropriate order from appropriate Court within the aforesaid period. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)