Sindhu W/O Machindra Jagtap vs Collector And Anr.
2007 Latest Caselaw 254 Bom

JUDGMENT

B.R. Gavai, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forth with. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. One Smt. Ashabai widow of the brother of the present petitioner had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 44/1992. In the said suit, the present petitioner was added as defendant No. 4. The learned Civil Judge, J.D., Beed decreed the suit on 30-6-1995. In the said suit, it was declared that the defendant No. 4-present petitioner was entitled for 1/33th share in the agricultural lands.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that though a precept is sent to the respondent No. 1-Collector, Beed, for effecting partition, no steps are taken by the respondent No. 1-Collector, Beed. It is submitted that under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the Collector is duty bound to act upon the said precept.

4. As such, a limited grievance of the petitioner is that the precept which is sent to the respondent No. 1-Collector, Beed, for effecting the partition should be acted upon by him.

5. In view of the limited grievance of the petitioner, I am inclined to allow the petition. The respondent No. 1-Collector, Beed, is directed to take necessary steps in furtherance of the precept received by him to effect partition as per the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 44/1992 on 30-6-1995. The respondent No. 1-Collector, Beed, is further directed to take immediate steps as per the precept and hand over the possession of the property to the petitioner to which she is entitled, within a period of six months from today.