1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.238 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1187 OF 2010 Daulat Fakika Aher and Ors. ..Appellants. Vs. Gangadhar Sawalaram Pawar & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.M.S.Karnik for the appellants. Mr.M.M.Sathaye for respondent no.1. Ms.V..S.Mhaispurkar for respondent nos.2 to 7. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 07/10/2010. PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2009 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-2, Niphad allowing the appeal filed by the original plaintiff in regular civil appeal no.93 of 2005. The appeal was directed against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2001 passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The suit was filed for declaration that the order passed by defendant no.5 i.e. the Superintendent of Land Records, Nasik District dated 27.5.1997 is not binding on him and that the same is illegal and void and also for injunction against defendant S 2 nos.1 to 4 restraining them from disturbing his peaceful possession over the suit land gat no.73 and further restraining defendant no.5 to 9 from deleting name of the plaintiff from the record of rights. 3. Original Survey No.20/7 was divided into two gats, namely, gat nos.70 and 73, after the scheme under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 was made applicable. Gat No.70 was admeasuring 5 acres and 33 gunthas, whereas gat No.73 was admesauring 3 acres. Gat no.73 was allotted to the share of one Hari Trimbak, whereas gat no.70 was allotted to one Fakira. The plaintiff purchased gat No.73 from Hari Trimbak in 1983. There is no dispute that Hari Trimbak was owner of the land which was given gat no.73, and which was purchased by the plaintiff in 1983. This gat number, according to the appellant- defendant, was subsequently cancelled and it was merged in gat no.70. According to the plaintiff this was done behind his back. Thereafter defendant no.5 – S.L.R. also passed the order on 27.5.1997 deleting gat no.73 from the record of rights behind the back of the plaintiff and, hence he filed suit seeking declaration that the said order is not binding on him. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the Civil Court had no power to set aside the order dated 27.5.1997 3 and/or to declare that it was not binding on the plaintiff. Merely because the plaintiff had a remedy of appeal against the order of S.L.R. under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code does not mean that he could not have filed suit for declaration that the order dated 27.5.1997, cancelling gat no.73 is not binding on him since it was passed without issuing notice and/or without hearing him by the concerned authority. I have perused the judgment and more particularly pargraphs 19 to 22 of the appellate court and I find no error of law committed by the appellate court while allowing the appeal. No substantial question of law, in my opinion, is either raised or involved in the second appeal. Hence the second appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the civil application is also disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)