1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 543 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 912 OF 2007 Savakar Tukaram Gaikwad ........Appellants versus Bhupal Parisa Nawale & ors........ Respondents. Mr. Pratap Patil adv. for the Applicants Mr. Vinod Jadhav i/b V.D. Patil adv. for the respondents CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 25th FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. The present appellant/plaintiff claimes to be the contiguous land holder adjoining the suit field owned by the defendant nos.2 and 3. Plaintiff filed a suit claiming relief of declaration that the sale deed executed by the defendant nos. 2 and 3 in favour of defendant no.1 is illegal being in contravention of the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act. The trial court in the first place held that the plaintiff/appellant is not a contiguous land holder and then found that he lack the locus to claim right of pre- emption in regard to the sale of land in his favour. The first appellant court has dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant and has further recorded a finding in favour of the 2 defendant/respondent that th sale deed executed by the defendant nos.2 and 3 in favour of the defendant no.1 is valid as the same has been regularised by the competent authority under the act. which power undisputedly is possessed by the competent authority, and this position is not in dispute before this court. In the absence of any legal right in the appellant, the courts below have rightly found that the appellant is lacking the locus to claim the relief that he has claimed relying upon the right of pre-emption as a contiguous holder of the land in regard to purchase of suit land. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. In the result second appeal is summarily dismissed. 3. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the civil application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)