1 W.P. 9711.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9711 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders ................................ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 17/12/2011. Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner. ..................... PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that issue no. 3-A is required to be decided by the authorities under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act [ For short, ‘ Consolidation Act ’ ]. The said issue no. 3-A deals with the validity and the legality of the title of the plaintiff over the suit plot. It is the specific objection of the petitioner that the said sale deed is barred as the fragment is created and the said aspect of the fragment is required to be decided by the authorities under the said Act. The Court has not properly considered this aspect while rejecting the 2 W.P. 9711.2011 objection for referring it to the Consolidation authority constituted under the said Act. The learned counsel submits that the said issue will have to be read with regard to the objection of the present petitioner in the Written Statement that the said sale deed is not valid in view of the bar created by the Consolidation Act. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the issues and the order. 3. Issue no. 3-A framed is as under : “ 3-A : Whether plaintiff has valid and legal title to the suit plot ? ” 4. Issue No. 3-A read as it is, deals with the title of the plaintiff. The title of the plaintiff over the suit property will always be decided by the Civil Court. The authorities would only decide those matters, which are to be decided under the statute. Section 36-A of the Consolidation Act also bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court only in respect of the matters, which are required to be decided under the said Act by the State Govt. or any Officer or the authorities under the State Act. There is no issue framed in the present Suit which is required to be decided by the authorities under the Act. The arguments of Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel that issue no. 3 W.P. 9711.2011 3-A will have to be read as the sale deed is void in view of the provisions of the Consolidation Act, can not be considered. It would be reading into the issue which has not been framed. 5. As there is no issue framed by the Court, which is required to be exclusively decided by the authority under the Consolidation Act, I do not feel any error being committed by the Court while rejecting the application. 6. The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/W.P. 9711.2011