Oral Judgment:-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to delete the respondent Nos. 8 to 15. Leave granted at the risk of the petitioner.

By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 25th August, 2009 passed by the respondent No.1 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioners.

In a suit filed by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7, bearing R.C.S. No. 196/1990, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kopargaon, passed a decree on 5/1/1995, decreeing the suit, thereby holding that the original plaintiffs were entitled to half share in the suit property. The original defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 5, being aggrieved thereby, preferred

R.C.A. No. 60/1995. The said appeal was partly allowed, thereby the decree came to be modified to some extent, as there was a compromise decree between the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and defendant No.5, whereby, the share of the defendant NO.4 was given to the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 5. A Second Appeal challenging the said judgment and order, bearing Second Appeal No. 503/2006 was dismissed on 20/6/2007. A special leave petition, preferred there against was also dismissed.

2. In pursuance to the decree passed by the appellate court, the proceeding for effecting partition was initiated by the respondent authorities and accordingly, the Tahsildar had prepared a draft partition. A notice was issued on 25/6/2007, to the petitioners to remain present for handing over possession. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court bearing RTS Appeal No. 215/2007. The same was dismissed. Further appeal before the Honourable Minister challenging the same was also dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition.

3. Shri R.N. Dhorde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the Additional Commissioner, so also, the Honourable Minister have not taken into consideration that the notice issued by the Tahsilder dated 25th August, 2009 was dehors the provisions of law. He submits that since the procedure as prescribed under Section 85 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) read with the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Records (Partition of Holdings) Rules, 1967, (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) was not complied with, the Appellate court and the Honourable Minister ought to have set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar.

4. Shri Hon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 on the contrary submits that decree in favour of the said respondents had achieved finality upto the Apex Court. It is submitted that though the partition has been done in accordance with law, the present petitioners, so as to deprive the respondents of the fruits of decree, are putting one objection after another only to protract the proceedings. He submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.

5. Shri More, the learned AGP supports the impugned order He submits that since the competent civil court has passed a decree which has achieved finality, the authorities of the Revenue Department, are only required to do the ministerial work and effect partition and that the same has been done in accordance with law Section 85 of the Code, reads thus:

“85. Partition: (1) Subject to the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, a holding may be partitioned on the decree of a civil court or an application of co-holders in the manner hereinafter provided.

(2) If in any holding there are more than one co-holder, any such co-holder may apply to the Collector for a partition of his share in the holding:

(3) The Collector may, after hearing the co-holder divide the holding and apportion the assessment of the holding in accordance with the rules made by the State Government under this Act.

(4) deleted

(5) Expenses pr