1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 1008 of 2008 [S.N. Varatkar Vs. R.P. Gadkar & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.V. Bhide, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for respondent no.1. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 28th March,2008. 1. Heard. 2. The respondents herein filed a suit for declaration and injunction, in which temporary injunction has been granted in their favour and against present petitioner. 3. The petitioner is admittedly a transferee of land from Sitaram Rawaji Mondhe. 4. The plaintiffs are relying upon exchange done in the course of consolidation proceedings duly signed by said Sitaram Rawaji 2 Mondhe, predecessor-in-title of the petitioner 5. The land, as it stands after consolidation, is transferred by Sitaram Rawaji Mondhe in favour of petitioner, who now disowns the said exchange by original owner. 6. Both the Courts below, relying upon the revenue record of exchange and consistent revenue record as stood after 1976, granted application for temporary injunction. 7. The petitioner has even failed to apply, nor his predecessors-in-title had applied for any correction under Section 31A of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation & Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, nor any challenge, in any other manner, has been raised as to correctness of the consolidation proceedings and the said exchange. 8. In oral submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Bhide urged that every exchange ought to be through some document and no such document is coming forward. 9. The argument is contrary to the scheme of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation & Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. 10. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts. Those are not 3 challenged as perverse, or otherwise illegal. 11. In the circumstances, no interference is called for. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge |Hedau|