1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTON CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.705 OF 2009 Sushila Adgonda Patil .. Applicant V/s Sheetalkumar Ajaikumar Patil & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Anilkumar Patil for the Applicant. Mr.P.A.Paranjape i/by Ms.Tejpal S.Ingale for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE: 24th September, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition challenges the order dated 13th August, 2009 passed by learned 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli, below Exh.1 in R.C.Suit No.150 of 2008. By that order, the learned trial Judge held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 instituted R.C.Suit No.150 of 2008 praying for declaration that they are the owners in respect of agricultural lands bearing Gat No.1747/1 admeasuring 0.90 R as also Gat No.1747/2 admeasuring 2H 80 R. In the alternative, they claimed declaration that in case the court comes to the conclusion that Respondent Nos.1 & 2 did not acquire ownership by virtue of mutation entry No.1007 dated 5th February, 1979, they have become owner by adverse possession. 3. Petitioner herein (original defendant No.5) contested the claim made by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and submitted application at Exh.35 on 28th July, 2008 contending inter-alia that the civil court 2 has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit in view of Section 29 of the Maharashtra Re-settlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976. That application was resisted by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 by filing reply Exh.40. 4. Upon considering rival contentions, learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. 5. As noted earlier, Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have claimed declaration of ownership of suit lands and in the alternate they are claiming ownership by way of adverse possession. Considering the reliefs prayed by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 – original plaintiffs, in my opinion, learned trial Judge was justified in reaching the conclusion that the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. In view of this, Civil Revision Application is dismissed with no order as to costs. 6. Learned trial Judge who is seized of the suit shall decide the suit in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in this order. (R.G.Ketkar, J.)