1 sa402-11 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 402 OF 2011 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 986 OF 2011 Sadhu Appa Thombre (Since deceased through his LR's) Tukaram Sadhu @ Sadashiv Thombre & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. T. D. Deshmukh for the appellants. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 16, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The appellants are the plaintiffs. Appellants filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents. The suit has been dismissed by the trial Court and an Appeal preferred by the appellants has been dismissed by the district Court. 2. According to the case of the appellants, they are the owners of the land bearing old Survey No.24/2 and 24/3 which were numbered as Gat No.98 in consolidation proceedings under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and consolidation of holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 2 sa402-11 “the said Act”). According to the case of the appellants, the second to seventh respondents are the owners of land bearing Survey No. 24/4 which was allotted Gat No.97 in consolidation proceeding. The case made out in the plaint is that without any notice to the appellants, the authorities under the said Act carried out correction to the Consolidation Scheme and taking undue advantage of the rectification of the Scheme, the second to seventh respondents started obstructing the possession of the appellants. Therefore, a suit for declaration and injunction was filed by the appellants. The suit was contested by the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The Appellate Court has framed only one point for determination regarding illegality of the amendment/correction in the consolidation scheme. The Appellate Court held that in view of Section 36-A of the said Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was ousted. 3. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, I find that no substantial question of law arises. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the order of rectification of the Scheme is illegal and void as there is no prior notice served the appellants. Perusal of the plaint shows that the aforesaid contention has not been specifically raised in the plaint. No case was made out by the appellants that the action of the rectification of the Scheme was void. Only if a 3 sa402-11 specific case would have be made out in the plaint that action of rectification was null and void, the ouster of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court provided under Section 36A of the said Code could not be invoked. Unless the rectification of the scheme was proved to be void, appellants cannot claim any right in respect of the disputed property. 4. There is no reason to disturb the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 5. Civil Application No. 986 of 2011 does not survive and the same is dismissed. (A.S.OKA, J.)