1 CRA 380/2010 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 380 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. M.S. Karnik for the applicants. Mr. Satyajeet Dighe i/b Mr. S.K. Shinde for the respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 21ST JUNE 2011 P.C. : 1. By this revision application, the applicants challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, rejecting the contention of the applicants (defendants) that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the suit land is a watan land and on abolition of the watans, the land was 2 CRA 380/2010 regranted to the applicant by the Collector. He therefore submits that under section 3 of the Bombay Inferior Watan Abolition Act, 1958 (for short “the Act”), the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit for possession. 3. Under section 3 of the Act, the Collector is required to decide three questions, namely (i) whether any land is a watan land, (ii) whether any person is a watandar, and (iii) whether any person is an unauthorised holder. The issue whether a land has been regranted to a person or not is not an issue which is required to be decided by the Collector under section 3 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of Civil Court to decide the issue whether the land was regranted to the defendant is excluded by necessary implication in view of section 3 of the Act. Admittedly, there is no express ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. 3 CRA 380/2010 4. Counsel for the applicants then submitted that the issue whether the land has been regranted to the applicants or not has already been decided in a previous litigation between the parties under whom the present parties claim. This contention was not raised in the application by the defendants. In the absence of any pleading and evidence to that effect, the point cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in this Court. There is no merit in the revision application. Revision application is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)