1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 3609 of 2007 (Ratnakar Manikrao Thakre Vs. Addl. Commr. Nagpur Div. & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr. Anoop Parihar, A.G.P. for R-1,3 & 4. Mr. P.A. Deshmukh, Adv. For R-2. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 1 st December, 2008 By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, on 8/1/2007 in revision as also the order passed by the Collector, Nagpur, on 4/7/1997, with further direction to restore the measurements of the land as per the consolidation proceedings concluded on 29/7/1985. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused both the orders. The Collector, Nagpur, has corrected the area of Survey No. 84 as well as area of Survey No. 91/69 which are respectively in possession of the petitioner 2 and the respondent no.1, by the order dated 4/7/1997. An application for correction of the entry was made by the respondent no.1 on 8/6/1994. Before demarcating the properties, the Taluka Inspector of Land Records had served a notice on the concerned parties and had asked them to remain present on 14/7/1995 for spot verification and demarcation. It is observed in both the orders that the concerned land holders remained present at the time of demarcation and the father of the petitioner had also appeared at the time of spot measurement on 14/7/1995 in pursuance of the notice dated 6/7/1995. It further appears from the order that the record clearly showed that the father of the petitioner gave his consent in writing for the correction to be effected on the basis of the measurement made on 14/7/1995. The authorities have recorded a categorical finding of facts that the submission of the petitioner that he or his father had not been granted an opportunity or that his father was not present on 14/7/1995, was completely incorrect. The orders passed by the Collector as 3 well as Additional Commissioner cannot be found fault with. The Collector had jurisdiction to make the corrections in the entries and it appears that the same had been effected after giving an opportunity to all the concerned parties. The orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP