JUDGMENT (Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and the petitions are taken up for final disposal. 3. All these petitions question the decision taken in Cabinet Meeting by the State Government on 5.1.2009 to bifurcate Aurangabad Revenue Division and to create a separate Revenue Division for Nanded, Latur, Parbhani and Hingoli districts with it's headquarter at Nanded. The petitioners submit that this was not the subject scheduled on agenda of the Cabinet Meeting and was taken up at eleventh hour. The Cabinet decision expected administration to follow the legal provisions and to comply with the statutory requirements. However, without taking any such steps, directly, as if the Revenue Division stands created with headquarter at Nanded, the budgets were prepared. Our attention has also been invited to orders passed in present Writ Petitions on 15.1.2009 and order dated 10.11.2006 in Writ Petition No.6025 of 2006 by this Court. 4. Respective learned counsel state that they have no objection to creation of separate Revenue Division but it must be done after complying with the provisions of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for brevity, hereinafter "1966 Code") read with Section 24 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 (for brevity, "1904 Act" hereinafter). 5. Learned AGP submits that the learned Advocate General has appeared before this Court on 15.1.2009 and made a statement that procedure prescribed in law would be followed. Accordingly, that procedure was initiated but then as suggested, a One Man Committee chaired by retired Honourable Judge of this Court was constituted. He submits that thereafter, the report of that Committee was to be received and looked into. 6. We have perused the provisions of Section 4 of the 1966 Code. Section 4 deals with the constitution of Revenue areas. Sub-section (4) thereof stipulates that every notification or order made under Section 4 is subject to condition of previous publication and for that purpose Section 24 of 1904 Act has been made applicable. The power has been given to State Government. Clause (d) of Section 24 of 1904 Act requires the authority having power to create such Revenue Division, to consider any objection or suggestion, which may be received by it from any person, after the publication of such notification or proposal. The power has been given to State Government. Clause (d) of Section 24 of 1904 Act requires the authority having power to create such Revenue Division, to consider any objection or suggestion, which may be received by it from any person, after the publication of such notification or proposal. It is, therefore, apparent that this statutory procedure cannot be done away and even if any One Man Committee is appointed or it's report is accepted that acceptance cannot defeat the requirements of Section 4(4) of 1966 Code. 7. It is an admitted position that till date, no such steps are taken and there is no separate Revenue Division. 8. The impugned decision taken in the Cabinet meeting dated 5.1.2009 does not by itself violate Section 4(4) of 1966 Code. However, it's implementation appears to be faulty. In this situation, with liberty to the State Government to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with provisions of Section 4(4) of 1966 Code, we partly allow this petition. We, further direct the State Government to follow the later part of said Resolution on subject No.4, which requires it to abide by the necessary legal provisions. 9. Respondents in Writ Petition No.149 of 2009 as also petitioner in Writ Petition No.1632 of 2009, pray that these steps should be taken in a time bound manner. The decision taken by the Cabinet is more than four year's old. Hence, we direct the respondents to initiate necessary steps within period of three months from today. 10. With these directions, Rule is made absolute accordingly in all Writ Petitions, with no order as to costs.