wp3776-11.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3776 OF 2011 Sunil T. Bharadkar .. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Mr.R.A.Thorat with Mr.P.J.Thorat for the petitioner. Mr.A.I.Patel, A.G.P for respondent No.1. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28th JUNE 2011. P.C.: 1] Heard Mr.Thorat learned Counsel for petitioners. The orders passed and impugned in this petition essentially revolve around the correction of area stated to be covered by the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.2. He approached the authority and has pointed out that the area statement requires correction. That version of the second respondent is accepted and that of the petitioner is disbelieved. wp3776-11.doc 2 The finding that the petitioners' predecessor had not complained about exclusion of certain portion and, therefore, the area statement requires correction is in no way conclusive, inasmuch as, the issue is being determined by the revenue authorities. Ultimately, their findings and conclusions will not bind the competent civil court and if the petitioner files such a substantive suit claiming right, title and interest in the property, I am sure that the competent court will adjudicate the same in accordance with law and in the light of the oral and documentary evidence produced, without in any manner being influenced by the order of the Collector and that of the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division. Finding that these matters do not conclude the issue of right, title and interest of the parties in the immovable property, there is no reason to interfere in writ jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)