1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.145/2010. (Hanmantrao Sahebrao Hangargekar Vs. Sau.Mahadevi Suraj Kshirsagar) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Vinesh Solshe, Adv. For petitioners; Mr.KK Kulkarni, Adv. For sole respondent. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 26 th November, 2010. ... 1) Heard. 2) RCS No.36/2010 sought a decree for setting aside the sale-deed executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of defendant n no.2 dated 14.9.2009, being contrary to the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as said Act of 1947). 3) An application was moved in terms of Section 9 of CPC by the defendants, challenging jurisdiction of Civil Court to decide the controversy in the manner the plaintiff desired since it is inhibited in terms of Section 36A of the said Act of 1947. 4) It was pointed to the learned Judge that 2 the plaintiff has not challenged the Consolidation Scheme, which will attract the provisions of Section 36A of the said Act of 1947. The plaintiff has come with a grievance that though there is no bore-well in existence, the defendants illegally mentioned in the sale-deed that 20 R. of the land is irrigated as 1 ½ share in the bore-well sold to the defendant no.2 This is so informed even by the Commissioner. Thus, the controversy revolve to the reference of irrigated land in the sale- deed and its non-existence. In this scenario of the matter, the observation of the learned Judge, that Civil Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit, cannot be called to be perverse, warranting interference. 5) The petitioner is at liberty to approach the learned Judge in RCS No.36/2010 and satisfy that the issue relating to fragmentation calls for reference to the competent authority in terms of Section 36B of the said Act. The learned Judge will decide the same on its own merits in accordance with law. 6) CRA dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/