WP 7917/10 & 8226/10 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7917 OF 2010 (Dnyanoba s/o. Krushna Shelke Vs. Tukaram s/o. Krushna Shelke) WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8226 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mrs. M.S. Mhase, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.N. Marampalle, Advocate for sole respondent in WP 7917/10 and for respondent No. 6 in WP 8226/10. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 1st March, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Application by petitioner/defendant contending that as issue prohibited under section 36-B of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, arises the matter needs to be referred to consolidation authorities has been rejected. The Trial Court has found no such question arising for determination. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant has invited attention to plaint to urge that position alleged in paragraph 20 is as prevailing prior to implementation of consolidation scheme. According to her, if that position is to be accepted, consolidation scheme is definitely going to be disturbed. 3. According to the learned counsel for respondent/ WP 7917/10 & 8226/10 2 plaintiff, the plaintiff has not sought any relief which will violate the consolidation scheme or attract the provisions of section 36-B of the above mentioned Act. 4. Respondent/plaintiff has alleged that adjoining neighbourer has been shown in possession of more land. This contention by itself is not prohibited by the provisions of the Fragmentation Act. The Trial Court has accordingly applied its mind on the face of allegation made and found that issue under Fragmentation Act does not fall for determination. However, it is apparent that Trial Court is aware of its limitations and if during further process it finds that it is not in position to grant relief in any way without affecting the consolidation scheme, it can very well consider the said restraint at that time. 5. I therefore find that at present no prejudice is caused to the petitioner/defendant. Petitions are therefore not entertained and rejected as such. [ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ] ssc/wp7917/8226.10