1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.49 OF 2009 Ananda Gopal Bidkar .... Applicant Vs. Laxman Subrao Bagadi & Ors. .... Respondents Shri P.R. Arjunwadkar for the Applicant. Shri G.M. Savagave for Respondent No.1. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JUNE 23, 2010 P.C: 1. This revision by an unscrupulous litigant seeks to stall execution of a decree on the ground that the decree passed by the trial Court itself was without jurisdiction, since it was passed over-looking the bar of the provisions under Section 36A of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the Act ). 2. The decree holder had filed a suit complaining of encroachment by the applicant over half acre of his property, which, 2 according to him, was in all five acres. The applicant seeks to take advantage of the fact that the decree holder had mentioned in para 3 of the plaint that the consolidation officer, without any notice to the decree holder, mentioned the area of his field as four acres and 32 gunthas instead of five acres. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, what the decree holder had sought in the suit was a modification to the consolidation scheme, which was out of bounds for the Civil Court under Section 36A of the Act. 3. In this case, at the instance of the plaintiff/decree holder, in the trial Court the Taluka Inspector of Land Records was appointed to measure the lands bearing Gat Nos.97 and 98 of the parties at Village Terwad. The Taluka Inspector of Land Records, after such measurement, had come to the conclusion that the applicant had encroached upon 25 ares of land belonging to the complainant. This evidence given by the Commissioner, as also by the decree holder before the trial Court, had gone unchallenged and, therefore, the decree was passed. The applicant seems to have been unsuccessful in an appeal which he tried to 3 take before the District Judge and thus the decree has been confirmed. 4. Now, being faced with a situation when he has allowed a decree to be passed against him, without leaving any avenue open to him, the applicant tries to take shelter behind the provision of Section 36A of the Act, alleging that the decree results in modification of the consolidation scheme. The case is simply one of removal of encroachment. There is nothing to show that the Taluka Inspector of Land Records carried out the measurement with reference to a map which was different than the map defining the boundaries between the fields. There is also nothing on record to show that in the implementation of the consolidation scheme for the village, there was any occasion to reduce the holding of the decree holder or to increase that of the judgment debtor. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Judge of the executing Court erred in rejecting the applicant s application raising objection to the decree on such a ground. 5. At the cost of repetition, it has to be pointed out that the Taluka Inspector of Land Records had carried out the measurement, 4 indicated the encroachment and the decree is for recovery of possession of the area shown in the said map which is marked as Exhibit-52. There is no ambiguity; there is no modification of the consolidation scheme and, therefore, the application was rightly rejected by the executing Court and hence does not call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision application is rejected. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)