spb/- 1 WP7020-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7020 OF 2010 Shri Dnyanoba Dinkar Tambe & Ors. ... Petitioners. Vs. Shri Subhash Dagadu Tambe & Ors. ... Respondents. --- Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude for the Petitioners. Mr. S.V.Sadavarte for the Respondents. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 26th NOVEMBER, 2010. P.C. 1 Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the Respondents waives service. By consent taken up for hearing. 2 By this petition, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 21st July, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge -14, Pune, confirming the order of injunction passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune. 3 The respondents filed a suit against the petitioners for a declaration that they were owners of the suit property bearing Gat No.257, spb/- 2 WP7020-10.sxw admeasuring 43 acres and for an injunction, restraining the petitioners from disturbing their possession. The trail court granted interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved petitioners have approached this court. 4 The suit property is situated at village Taleranwadi, Tal Haveli, Dist. Pune. The consolidation scheme was made applicable to the village in the year 1968. In the consolidation scheme the suit land in survey no. 106 was alloted to the respondents. The respondents thus became the owners of the suit property under the consolidation scheme. 5 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was an error in the consolidation scheme and part of the property which belonged to the petitioners was wrongly included in Gat No. 257 and was allotted to the Respondents. Therefore, injunction should not have been granted. 6 The petitioners have not taken any steps for correction of the alleged error in the consolidation scheme for more than 30 years since 1968. In the circumstances, the grievance of the petitioners that there is an error in the consolidation scheme and the respondents are not the spb/- 3 WP7020-10.sxw owners cannot be accepted. 7 Learned counsel for the petitioners then contended that as per the map prepared by the surveyor of measurements map, the respondents have not show to be in possession of the entire Gat No.257. I have perused the map. I am unable to agree with the said contention that the measurement map does not show that the respondents are not in possession of the suit property. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court have concurrently held that the respondents are owners and are in possession of the suit property. This is a possible finding of fact which requires no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 8 Learned counsel for the petitioners then invited my attention to the observations made in paragraph 29 of the impugned order of the District Court. The relevant observations are : “The plaintiffs have also admitted that the defendants were using water of this well for irrigation. In such circumstances, the defendants can use the water of well situated in Gat No. 258 for irrigation of their lands and the plaintiffs should not obstruct them from such user till the decision of the suit.”. The learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submitted that in view of this clear finding, the lower appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal entirely and it should spb/- 4 WP7020-10.sxw have held and ordered that the petitioners have a right to use water in the well in Gat No. 258. 9 Perusal of the plaint shows that the suit relates to only Gat No.257 and Gat No. 258 was not the subject matter of the suit. The Suit as well as Appeal did not relate to Gat No. 258. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the lower appellate court committed an error in merely dismissing the appeal without making an order relating to Gat No.258. 10 There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]