1 CRA 56/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.56 OF 2006 Smt. Shantabai Arjun Sandbhor through her constituted attorney Shri Lahu Arjun Sandbhor & Ors. .... Applicants Vs. Shri Baban Gunda Katkar & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. P.B. Shah, Advocate for applicants. Mr. S.S. Kanetkar, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Avinash Joshi, Advocate for respondents no. 2 to 7. Mr. S.V. Sonawane, AGP for respondents no. 8 to 14. Coram : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 29th September, 2010 P.C. 1. This Revision Application arises out of the order dated 23rd February 2006 passed by 9th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune holding that the suit filed by respondent no.1 is not barred by Section 36 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 and that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. 2. In the year 1969, respondent no.1 purchased land admeasuring 9 acres and 20 gunthas from one Hiralal Gujar, out of survey no.183 admeasuring 33 acres and 23 gunthas. After the sale, respondent no.1 was put in possession of the property. In the year 1972, the procedure of 2 CRA 56/2006 consolidation of land took place in which the land owned by respondent no.1 was given gat no.1062. However, the area in respect of that was shown as only 8 acres, 4 gunthas leaving land admeasuring 1 acre 16 gunthas. In the year 1985, respondent no.1, by four different sale-deeds sold the land admeasuring 8 acres and 4 gunthas to petitioners no. 1 to 4, who are original defendants no. 1 to 4. These petitioners inturn sold the land to the other petitioners, who are the other defendants to the suit. On 24th November 2005, respondent no.1 filed Special Civil Suit No. 1566 of 2005 seeking three prayers. Firstly for a declaration that he is the owner of the land admeasuring 1 acre, 16 gunthas together with the well standing thereon, secondly for a declaration that the petitioners do not have any right, title or interest to that property and thirdly that the sale-deeds executed by petitioners no. 9 to 23, who are original defendants no. 15 to 29 are illegal, null and void and the same are not binding upon him. The fourth relief sought is of permanent injunction to restrain these defendants i.e. original defendants no. 1 to 9 and 15 to 36 from disturbing possession of respondent no.1 of land admeasuring 1 acre, 16 gunthas. In the plaint, it has been contended that at the time of consolidation, holding of respondent no.1 was shown to be elsewhere and the holding of the adjoining plot owners, i.e. respondents no. 10 to 14 was shown as more than what they owned. Their holding was shown as 3 CRA 56/2006 5 acres, 86 gunthas in place of 4 acres, 5 gunthas, whereas the holding of respondent no.1 was shown as 8 acre, 4 gunthas instead of 9 acres, 20 gunthas. 3. The petitioners filed an application on 7th January 2006 contending that respondent no.1 has essentially challenged the consolidation scheme in the suit filed by him. According to the petitioners, unless there is a challenge to the consolidation scheme, respondent no.1 cannot be expected to succeed in the suit. The trial court, by the impugned order held that respondent no.1 has not claimed any relief in respect of consolidation scheme. He has not challenged the correctness of consolidation scheme and revenue entries. Only if the respondent no.1 was to contend so the suit would have been affected of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. What respondent no.1 is in fact doing by the suit is getting his right to land admeasuring 1 acre, 16 gunthas established by the Court. This is required because of the difference in the area of the properties of the parties that came to be recorded in the revenue records. As regards the petitioners, at paragraph 18 of the plaint, respondent no.1 alleges that when the proceedings were pending before the competent authority i.e. Deputy Director of Land Records, petitioners no.1 to 9 i.e. original defendants no. 1 to 9 had mischievously made an application before 4 CRA 56/2006 T.I.L.R. and in collusion with him brought into existence an illegal demarcation plan, wherein the property in possession and occupation of respondent no. 1 is shown as part of property of these petitioners. This is the reason why respondent no.1 is challenging the transactions of sale by petitioners no. 1 to 4 in favour of the other petitioners. Taking into consideration overall view of the matter, it is obvious that the relief claimed in the suit is not of challenging any action taken by the authorities, nor does it deal with any question, which is by or under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 is required to be settled or dealt with by the State or any other officer or authority. In that circumstance, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the applicants. There is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Hence, the revision application is dismissed. 4. Mr. Shah, applies for extension of the interim relief passed in the revision application of staying the hearing of the suit for a period of four weeks. The application is rejected. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J) (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J)