1 Writ Petition No.9415/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9415 OF 2010 Pradeep s/o Sukhdeo Ahire ... PETITIONER VERSUS The Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri R.L. Kute, Advocate holding for Shri V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for petitioner Shri D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4 Shri Y.B. Pathan, Advocate for repsondent No.5 ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 27th June, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This petition takes exception to the order passed by the revisional authority i.e. Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in R.T.S. Revision No.277/2009. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner herein is residing on the land in dispute. It was contended before the revisional authority that the land belongs to the petitioner. However, from the perusal of the judgment of the revisional authority, it clearly appears that the petitioner did not produce any evidence on record to show that the land in dispute either belongs to his father or belongs to him. In absence of 2 Writ Petition No.9415/2010 any evidence placed on record, the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik was constrained to observe that if the petitioner is not able to prove that land belongs to his father or himself, in that case the encroacher has no any right and as a result, the revision came to be rejected. Upon hering counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent, and upon perusal of the impugned judgment of the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, no interference is warranted under extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. That apart, the counsel for the petitioner, when confronted with the query upon evidence, which was placed before the Additional Commissioner, is not able to bring to notice of this Court that any evidence in support of contention of the petitioner that the disputed property belongs to him, was produced before the authority. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, no interference is called for. Hence, petition stands dismissed. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) fmp/wp9415.10