(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 571 OF 2005 1. Santram s/o. Gangaram Ausekar, deceased per L.Rs. : 1/1. Gangabai w/o. Santram Ausekar [deceased]. 1/2. Ramesh s/o. Santram Ausekar, Aged : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Kamkheda, Taluka : Renapur, District : Latur. 1/3. Sow. Yamuna w/o. Nivarti Garad, Aged : 60 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Chincholi [Malyachi], Taluka : Kaij, District : Beed. 1/4. Kondabai w/o. Pandurang Yadhav, Aged : 48 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Mamdapur [Patoda], Taluka : Ambejogai, District : Beed, now at Kamkheda, Taluka : Renapur, District : Latur. 2. Haribhau s/o. Santram Ausekar, Aged : 56 years, Occupation : Service and Agriculture, R/o. Kamkheda, Taluka : Renapur, Dist. Latur. (2) 3. Dnyanoba s/o. Santram Ausekar, Aged : 50 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Kamkheda, Taluka : Renapur, District : Latur. 4. Balaji s/o. Kishanrao Ausekar, Aged : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Kamkheda, .. Appellants Taluka : Renapur, (Original District : Latur. defendants) versus Shriram s/o. Vithalrao Ausekar, Aged : 70 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Kamkheda, .. Respondent Taluka : Renapur, (Original District : Latur. plaintiff) ....................... Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate, for the respondent. ........................ (3) CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 8TH APRIL 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties, extensively. 2. The defendants, being aggrieved by the decree passed by the learned IInd Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Latur, dated 11th November 2003, have questioned the same on its legality. 3. The short point that creeps in is, the plaintiff is paramount holder shown in the revenue record, in respect of the agricultural properties. It is established through Cadastral Surveyor, that the defendants were possessing excess land, belonging to plaintiff. This being the case, the first appellate court justifiably directed the defendants to remove themselves from the encroached area. 4. The contention of the defendants, that there was addition of agricultural property of one Rukminibai Tukaram to the share of the defendants and it is so done under the (4) Consolidation Scheme, may be correct, however, unless records are rectified in favour of the defendants, the existing entries prevailing in favour of the plaintiff will have its effect which naturally demonstrate, that there is encroachment by the defendants in the property owned by the plaintiff. 5. In the result, the appeal does not project any substantial question of law. However, it is clarified, the defendants (appellants) have their independent remedies to challenge the Consolidation Scheme before the competent authorities and if they succeed, then the proper remedies under the law to be adhered to. 6. With the above observations, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/sa571