1 wp10758.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10758 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. A.S. Sawant, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3. 1. Heard respective counsel. In the background of earlier orders of this Court dated 01.12.2010, Advocate Mr. A.S. Sawant for petitioners-defendants states that though the orders are concurrent, position apparent from the report of Commissioner has been over looked. According to him, earlier the entire land admeasuring 6 H 54 R had one survey number i.e. survey no. 37 and it was divided into 10 parts. While the proceedings for consolidation of holdings were going on, the same parts are clubbed together to form survey no.110. Though such survey number has been formed, the possession of parties on the separate portion remained as earlier, and therefore, there are separate parts, separate cultivation and the separate crops. According to learned counsel, therefore, merely because after consolidation, the name 2 wp10758.10 of all parties appeared against the entire survey no. 110, fact that prior to consolidation names of the present respondents were shown only against two sub-divisions ought to have been given its due importance. He further contends that the crops in the suit land are sown by petitioner and they are entitled for harvesting it. 3. Advocate Shri. Gaware for respondent nos. 1 to 3 support the concurrent orders. He states that suit is not in relation to any part of survey no. 37 but in relation to entire survey no. 110. He further states that the suit for partition and separate possession is already pending between the parties. According to him, the crops sown are by the respondents and he placed reliance on the findings reached in this respect by the Courts below. 4. The Courts below applied their mind and considered the material produced before them and thereafter have concurrently reached that conclusion. I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting any interference in the present matter. 5. However, there is some dispute between the parties about ownership of crops standing in the suit land, the issue can be resolved by directing the respondents to inform trial Court that they are going to cut/harvest crops on a particular date. Trial Court shall then permit the present petitioners also to remain present at the time of 3 wp10758.10 such harvesting. The sale proceeds shall be deposited with the trial Court and shall be apportioned or given to the party succeeding in the trial Court. The impugned order is modified to that extent. 6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is partly allowed with no order as to costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 13.01.2011 gas/wp10758.10