[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL W.P.NO.4806 OF 2004 Vithu Ishwara Bhike ..Petitioner Vs. Shree Pandurang Dnyanu and Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr. Vikas M.Mali Advocate for Petitioner Mr. S.M.Kamble Advcoate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. Mr. A.P.Vanarse AGP for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5. Suit stood abated against Respondent No.1 ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JANUARY 14, 2008 DATE : JANUARY 14, 2008 DATE : JANUARY 14, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner, the learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned AGP for Respondent Nos.4 and 5. As per the office note, the Respondent No.1 expired two years back and petition came to be abated against the Respondent No.1. 2. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are cousins. There is a dispute between them over [-2-] "vahivat" i.e. cultivation in respect of R.S.No.544/4 admeasuring 24 gunthas situated at Murgud, Dist.Kolhapur. The said land was standing in the name of grand-father of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The said land came to Respondent No.1 from his father after his death on 17.11.1955. The record of rights in respect of the said land shows continuous cultivation of the grand-father of respondent no.1 upto the year 1976-77. It is the case of the petitioner that there was a partition deed dated 20.7.1943 between father of petitioner and grand-father of Respondent Nos.1 and 2. On the strength of the said partition deed, the petitioner preferred an application to the Tahsildar to cancel the entry in the name of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and enter his name. The Tahsildar made the change as per the application and entered the name of the petitioner from the year 1977-1978 in record of rights in respect of the said land. When this change came to the notice of the Respondent nos.1 and 2, an application was preferred by the Respondent No.1 to the Tahsildar to cancel that entry and restore his name as it was before. The Tahsildar rejected the said application. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal came to be preferred [-3-] before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The said appeal came to be allowed by order dated 31.3.1992. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner challenged the said order before the Additional Collector, Kolhapur. The said appeal came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, revision came to be preferred by the petitioner before the learned Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, however, the said revision also came to be dismissed. Hence, the present petition. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was partition between petitioner’s father and grand father of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 20.7.1943. As per the partition, the suit land came into possession of the petitioner’s father. 5. It is an admitted fact that in the year 1956, the scheme of 7x12 record came into force in village Murgud, Dist. Kolhapur. In the year 1956, the name of grand-father of Respondent nos.1 and 2 was shown in the 7x12 record of the disputed land. The case of the petitioner is that by mistake, the name of father of the petitioner was not recorded in the 7x12 record but the name of the grand-father [-4-] of respondent nos.1 and 2 came to be recorded in 7x12 record. The petitioner has based his claim on the strength of the partition deed dated 20/22.7.1943. That was done more than 60 years ago. In the partition deed, there is a reference to one plot being R.S.No.244. However, the same cannot be identified with the land in dispute. Moreover, it is seen that though it is the contention of the petitioner that the partition had taken place in 1943, the land all along stood in the name of grand-father of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and in fact, his name appeared in 7x12 record upto the year 1976-77. Though the partition is alleged to have taken place on 20.7.1943, no exception was taken to the name of the grand-father of respondent nos.1 and 2 either by the petitioner or by his father for at least 34 years. It is only in the year 1976-77, an application came to be made by the petitioner and thereafter, name of the petitioner came to be entered in the 7x12 record in respect of the disputed land on the basis of alleged partition deed. The said change was effected without holding any enquiry about the title to the suit land. Hence, it came to be set aside by the Sub-Divisional Officer and rightly so. The [-5-] Additional Collector as well as the Additional Commissioner have considered all the aspects of the matter including the fact that the possession of the Respondents in respect of the disputed land is proved even in the Civil Court. The Civil Court has granted a permanent injunction against the petitioner in respect of the said land. Looking to all these facts, in my view, it has been rightly held that the question of title has to be addressed to the competent Civil Court. Hence, impugned order does not call for any interference. 6. Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]