1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3883 OF 2006. Anil Bhalchandra Shinde ... Petitioner. Versus Revnath Dayaram Chaudhari and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.Sanket S.Kulkarni, advocate holding for Mr.V.T.Chaudhari, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Swapnil S.Patil, advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr.D.R.Kale, A.G.P. for the Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 02.02.2010. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner impugns judgment and order rendered by the learned Divisional 2 Commissioner, Nasik in RTS Revision No.235/2002, whereby mutation entry No.356 was confirmed subject to changes which may be effected by the competent Consolidation Officer, in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. 3. The petitioner is owner of land Gat No. 183 which is recorded in the Consolidation Register as comprising of 1 hectare 21 Ares. The Respondent is owner of adjacent land G.No.182 which is shown to comprise of 1 hectare 6 Ares area as per the entries in the Consolidation record. It appears that their lands were jointly measured on basis of their common application. On the basis of the measurement, the mutation entry No.356 was sanctioned by the revenue authorities. The joint measurement revealed that the petitioner was in possession of land to the extent of 1 Hectare 14 Ares, whereas the Respondent is in possession of the land to the extent of 1 hectare 13 Ares. The boundaries of the lands were fixed. Be it noted that the 3 Respondent is uncle of the petitioner and originally both these lands held by the parties were parts and parcels of land S.No.63/2. It is undisputed that there was partition between them somewhere in 1965. 4. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entries in the consolidation record can not be altered or modified by the revenue Officers. He would submit that unless there is variation in the scheme, the area shown against name of the petitioner could not have been reduced vide M.E. No.356. It is pertinent to note that M.E.No.356 is recorded on basis of findings of joint measurement carried out by the Cadastral Surveyor on common application of the parties. The entries in the 7/12 record are for fiscal purpose. The entries in the revenue record do not make or unmake title. If the petitioner is aggrieved due to encroachment over his land Gat No.183, which is noticed after the measurement, he is at liberty to approach the Civil Court. M.E.No.356 is also not finally approved by the competent authority. It will not 4 be proper and desirable to decide title of the petitioner in any manner and, therefore, the Civil Court will be at liberty to examine the original consolidation record in order to find out whether the reduction of the area in respect of land Gat No.183 is legal and proper. The petition involves several disputed questions of facts and, therefore, the petition can not be entertained by this Court. Dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp3883.06