1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 3202 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr. R.C.Patil, Advocate for appellant. Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for respondent. ............................ CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 22/11/2010 PER COURT : 1. The present First Appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and Award passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jalgaon in the Reference made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The dispute was regarding the shares of the respective parties. The appellant claimed share of 10 Ana and 8 Ps. in the acquired land, while according to the present respondent nos. 3 and 7, the appellant did not have share of 10 Ana and 8 Ps., but the present appellant had share from the share of Trimbak. Trimbak had only 1/3rd share in the suit property as held by the Reference Court. 2 Being aggrieved by the same, the present appellant has filed the present First Appeal. 3. Mr. R.C. Patil, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that there is ample evidence on record to prove that the present appellant has got 10 Ana and 2 Ps. share in the land acquired by the State. Mr. Patil relies on the entry in the relevant revenue record to substantiate the said contention. Mr. Patil submitted that the said entry has not been challenged. The said entry has got presumptive value and the same should have been relied upon to come to the conclusion. According to him, there is no contra evidence on record suggesting that the present appellant does not have share of 10 Ana and 2 Ps. in the acquired land. The appellant further contended that the Reference Court has committed an error while computing the shares. 4. Per contra, Mr. Kale, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Reference Court has properly computed the shares. It is not disputed that initial owner was one Madhav Nago Chinchole, who was survived by four sons namely Trimbak, Motiram, Kautik and Totaram. Totaram died issueless and as such the property was inherrited by three heirs having 1/3 share each. The decendents of each brother Trimbak, Motiram and Kautik will inherit share from the respective father. As such, the share will have to be calculated from 1/3rd share of their father. There is 3 nothing on record to suggest that the share of Totaram was given to any particular brother. In absence of the same, it will have to be held that all 3 brothers had equal share i.e. 1/3rd each. The appellant, who is the son of Trimbak can not claim any more share, but he can claim share only from the 1/3 share of Trimbak. 5. It is the settled proposition of law that the entries in the revenue record do not confer any ownership meant only for fiscal purposes. As such, much credence can not be attached to the said entries. 6. I have gone through the record and proceedings and the Judgment and I find no infirmity in the Judgment passed by the Court below. 7. In the result, the First Appeal is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/FA 3202.2009