-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5447 OF 200 WRIT PETITION NO.5447 OF 200 WRIT PETITION NO.5447 OF 2007 1.Savitaben Ramubhai Patel and ors. .. Petitioners. Vs 1. Amritbhai Vestabhai Patel and ors. Respondents. Mr R.C.Shah, for the petitioners. Ms Bhavna Shah, for respondent no.2. Ms Amita Bhaktawani, for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J. CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J. CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J. DATE : 24.03.08. DATE : 24.03.08. DATE : 24.03.08. PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition arises from the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities by which the application filed by the petitioners on 22.3.2004 seeking cancellation of N.A.order dated 24.11.1987 and the Mamalatdar’s order issuing corrigendum to the partition order dated 28.11.2003, has been rejected. The petitioners claim that in 2003 there was a partition in which survey no.40/1 was allotted to their share. It appears that the order of N.A issued in favour of respondent no.2 is in respect of Survey No.41/1. There is no dispute that respondent no.1 has executed the sale deed in favour of respondent no.2 in respect of the very same land on 28.2.2001 and since then he claims to be -2- in possession thereof. The petitioners also claim to be in possession of the very same land. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner had filed an application seeking correction of the entry, namely, survey no.40/1 to survey no.40/2 and on the basis of that application the impugned order was passed by Mamalatdar dated 12.2.2004 issuing corrigendum to the partition order dated 28.11.2003. The petitioners have now turned around and claim that survey no.40/1 is the land which was allotted to their share, which, prima facie, does not appear to be correct from the material placed before this court. Moreover, in paragraph 10 of the rejoinder dated 8.2.2008 the petitioners have stated that by changing the order of partition on 12.4.2004 without making any rectification of the sale deed, respondent no.2 cannot become the owner of survey no.40/2, which further indicates that the claim in respect of survey no.40/1 is incorrect. Considering the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the authorities below and considering the extremely limited jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to disturb the finding of facts, in my opinion, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Order accordingly. -3- (D.B.Bhosale,J.) (D.B.Bhosale,J.) (D.B.Bhosale,J.)