IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITON No. 5477 of 2011 Abhimanyu Punjaji Kawale and another. Vs. Pralhad Ananda Rane and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. IF/DI Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 28 th November, 2011. Heard Shri Jain, the leaned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Bodade, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 3 to 6. The impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, on 15th of March, 2011, is challenged by the petitioners on two grounds. It is the case of the petitioners that the Additional Commissioner could not have allowed the revision filed by the respondent no.1, as in this case there was a clear violation of the provisions of Section 8 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. It is then submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Additional Commissioner has decided the revision filed by the respondent no.1 without hearing the petitioners and in the absence of the record of the Sub-Divisional Officer. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the Additional Commissioner was justified in allowing the revision filed by the respondent no.1 and holding that the provisions of Section 8 of the Act of 1947 were not attracted in this case. It is necessary to note that the petitioners and the respondent no.2 together owned 5.10 Hectors of land including 3.10 hectors of land which was purchased in the name of the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no. 2 and then divided between the petitioners and the respondent no.2. Since the respondent no.2 was desirous to sell 20 R. of land and since the petitioners were not desirous of purchasing the same, the respondent no.2 sold 20 R of land to the respondent no.1, who was an owner of the land which was contiguous to the 20 R of land which was sold by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.1. The Additional Commissioner observed that the respondent no.1 was the owner of 76 R of land which was contiguous to the 20 R of land and for better use he purchased of 20 R of land and became the owner of 96 R of land. So also, by selling 20 R of land from the total holding of 5.10 hectors of land belonging to the petitioners and the respondent no.2, the land remaining with the respondent no.2 was also not a fragment. Hence, no fragment was created by the sale and transfer of 20 R of land by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.1 by the registered sale deed dated 20.8.1994. The facts of the case were so clear that it was not necessary to peruse the record of the Sub-Divisional Officer. As regards the contention raised by the petitioners about denial of opportunity of being heard, it appears from the order sheet annexed to the petition that the petitioners and their counsel were absent on 20.1.2011, 2.2.2011, 9.2.2011, 10.2.2011, 22.2.2011 and 25.2.2011. On 25.2.2011 the Additional Commissioner granted a last opportunity to the petitioners to remain present and further observed in the order that in case they remain absent, it would be presumed that they have nothing to say in the matter and the matter would be proceeded exparte. In spite of the order dated 25.2.2011, the petitioners remained absent on 28.2.2011. The order sheet is quite eloquent. It is apparent from the order sheet that the petitioners failed to remain present before the Additional Commissioner in spite of grant of several opportunities. In this background, it cannot be said that the petitioners were denied hearing in the matter. The record of the S.D.O., as already observed herein above, was not necessary for deciding the issue involved in this case as the admitted facts of the case clearly showed that the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 and the respondent no.1 were the owners of 5.10 hectors of land and respondent no.2 sold 20 R of land to respondent no.1 who owned 76 R of land which was contiguous to the 20 R of land purchased by him. In this background, no grievance can be made by the petitioners about the Additional Commissioner deciding the matter in the absence of record. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.