1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

2. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik dated 31-5-2007 in Appeals filed by the various Respondents herein relating to the execution of the decree which decree is in favour of the petitioners abovenamed. The said Appeals were filed against the order of the Collector, Ahmednagar dated 25-8-2006 by which order the Collector had decided the manner in which the decree was to be executed.

3. The petitioners are the heirs of one Mahadu Narayan Pawar. The said Mahadu had purchased some lands from one Chotibee who was the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1956 which she had filed for partition and possession of agricultural lands bearing survey No. 46/2, 47/6, 48/6, 53/1B, 133/3, 52/1, 52/2, 131 and 50/4 situated at Chahurana Bk., taluka and district Ahmednagar and one house property. The said suit was filed against Chotibee against her mother Mamulabee and others. Pending the said suit, Chotibee sold her shares in the six lands bearing survey Nos.47/6, 48/6, 53/1B, 133/3, 52/1, 52/2 to the said Mahadu Narayan Pawar on 25-5-1957 and in pursuance of the said sale deed, Mahadu was impleaded as plaintiff No.2 in the said suit. The said Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1956 was decreed and it was held that Chotibee has 7/8th share while Mamulabee has 1/8th share in the entire suit property.

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed in the said Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1956, the original defendants Nos.7 and 8; Sakharam Mahadu Misal and Ramchandra Gopinath Misal, who had purchased land survey Nos. 52/1, 52/2 and 53(1)(b) from Mamulabee filed First Appeal No. 78 of 1958 and 79 of 1958 in this Court which was decided on 24-9-1963 and the decree passed in the said Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1956 was modified to a certain extent. The sum and substance of the said modification was that the land purchased by the defendants Nos.7 and 8 from the defendant No.1 Mamulabee was directed to be assigned to her share. If the same was not possible, the lower Court was directed to assign as much land as out of survey No.52/1, 52/2 and 53/1B to the defendant No.1 in consideration of her house and other lands. As to the rest of the share, the plaintiff was entitled to receive compensation from defendants Nos. 7 and 8. The decree further directed that in so far as the defendants Nos.7 and 8 were concerned, the issue of their tenancy was referred to the Mamlatdar and on the decision of the said issue, certain consequences were to follow. The decree of the trial Court was, therefore, modified in the First Appeal filed by the original defendants No.7 and 8.

5. It appears that Special Darkhast No.6 of 1965 came to be filed by the petitioners for getting the said decree executed. However, the said proceedings did not commence for a considerable period of time and consequently, Special Darkhast No. 57 of 1977 came to be filed as the papers in the original Darkhast No. 6 of 1965 were not traceable. Since according to the petitioner, no steps were being taken for execution of the decree passed in the year 1963, the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 1597 of 2002 in respect of the execution of the said decree. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by directing the Collector to execute the decree himself and the execution to be completed within one year. Apart from the said direction, certain other directions were issued which are contained in paragraph 5, 6 and 7 of the said judgment. The sum and substance of the directions was that the parties were eligible to raise their contentions in the execution proceedings before the Collector. The Collector was directed to adjust the equities to the extent they are to