RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. I have considered the strenuous submissions of the respective sides.

3. Two interesting factors emerge in this petition. Firstly, that respondent No. 4, who has nothing to do with the property mentioned in the 7/12 extract, claims a right to be heard before carrying out mutation entries with regard to the partition and allotment of portions of the land interse the family members of an erstwhile undivided Hindu family. Secondly, respondent No. 2/Additional Collector, Beed has set aside the mutation entry No. 735 in opposition to the law laid down by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Arvind Yeshwantrao Deshpande vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2003 (3) Mh. L.J. 1039, on the basis of which the Director General of Registration and Stamps, State of Maharashtra has issued guidelines dated 10.05.2006 which have also been violated by respondent No. 2.

4. There is no dispute that respondent No. 4 is not in any way related to the petitioners and has no concern of any nature whatsoever with land admeasuring 3 Hectres 7-R situated in Gat No. 168 a