wp4752-10.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4752 OF 2010 Dattu N. Gadhave .. Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Mr.Sujit G. Kurup with Shivaji P. Yadav & Sunil Kale for the petitioner. Mr.Rameshwar Gite for respondent No.2. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28th JUNE 2011. P.C.: 1] The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the State Government dated 12th August 2008. The petitioner approached the revisional authority against the order dated 16th March 2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that the correction in the revenue records and consolidation scheme is on the basis of the relevant documentary evidence along with orders dated 17th March 1997 and 4th July 2001 and 24th August 2004 so also site survey report etc. The request of the wp4752-10.doc 2 petitioner was to rectify an error in the records of rights and holding of agricultural land in the name of petitioner. 2] Considering the nature of the challenge and the observations in the impugned order, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction as the petitioner's remedy to approach competent civil court for declaration of his right, title and interest in the land in question is in no way prejudicially or adversely affected. The competent civil court will take into account entire documentary and oral evidence including the orders that are referred to above and arrive at a conclusion with regard to petitioner's right. The apprehension of the petitioner's Advocate that the civil court will be influenced by the observations and findings in the impugned order has no basis because the orders themselves clarify that merely on the strength of certain reports and orders and alleged computation the petitioner's claim cannot be held to be proved and substantiated. He will have to go and establish his ownership rights. Such being the nature of the observations wp4752-10.doc 3 and findings, I do not see how the competent civil court will be influenced by the observations in the impugned order. 3] Needless, therefore, to clarify that the civil court would adjudicate on the dispute regarding right, title and interest in the immovable property uninfluenced by any of these observations but decide the matter on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. Petition dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)