1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.85 OF 2006. Bapu s/o Panchappa Swami - PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.CR Deshpande,Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.VB Ghatge,AGP for Respondent No.1 & 2; Mr.SS Deshmukh, Advocate for Resp.Nos. 3 & 4. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 16th DECEMBER,2010. PER COURT: 1) Heard. 2) Following substantial question of law is formulated, - “Whether the first Appellate court was justified in remanding the matter, by framing an additional issue as Issue No.3-A and directing the competent authorities under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, to decide the same? 3) After extensively arguing the matter, 2 both the learned Counsel realized the deficiencies in the order of the learned District Judge while deciding the Regular Civil Appeal No. 18/2001 dated 24.7.2005. It is accepted, the learned District Judge having reaching to teh finding of jurisdiction, could not have adverted to formulate Issue No.3, as under ,- “Whether the plaintiff proves that in the year 1989 during implementation of consolidation scheme the concerned official in collusion with defendant no.3 wrongly shown the area of the land as 4 hectares 92 R. instead of 5 H 26 R in the record.?” 4) Both the learned Counsel inform that the matter calls for interference and to be remitted to the learned Additional District Judge at Nilanga to decide Regular Civil Appeal No. 18/2001 afresh, keeping all the issues/controversies between the parties open to be considered. 5) The substantial question of law formulated herein above is answered in favour of the appellant to the extent as above. Hence, order, (i) The order under challenge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 18/2001 dated 24.7.2005 passed by the learned 3 Additional District Judge, Nilanga, is set aside; (ii) Regular Civil Appeal No. 18/2001 is to be heard on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein or in any of the proceedings of this court in present AO; (iii) Considering the age of the matter and of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, Nilanga shall expeditiously dispose of the appeal, by formulating new points and independently arriving at his conclusions; (iv) Parties to appear before the learned Additional District Judge, Nilanga on 19th January, 2011; (v) Record and proceedings be sent immediately to the concerned. 6) Appeal from Order is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/