( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 624 OF 2008 Smt. Saleha Begum Moinoddin Since deceased, through L.Rs. Smt. Kazi Shakali Begum w/o Kazi Razioddin and others PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.V. Tele, AGP for the respondent No. 1 to 4. Mr. S.V. Natu, advocate for respondents No. 5-1 to 5-3. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 11th June, 2009] PER COURT : 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge orders rendered by the Superintendent, Land Records and the Deputy Director of Land Records. ( 2 ) 2. The deceased petitioner had filed writ petition No. 3620/2002 challenging the order rendered by learned Secretary and Officer on Special Duty of the Government of Maharashtra. This Court partly allowed the writ petition and directed that the application moved by the petitioner for variation of the scheme under section 32 (1) of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, shall be decided on merits thereof. The application was therafter filed by the petitioner. The Superintendent of Land Records rejected the application after carrying out measurements. It was noticed during course of the measurement that land survey No. 144 was measured and the measurement was in accordance with original record. Therefore, the Superintendent of Land Records declined to consider the request of the petitioners. The Deputy Director of Land Records rejected the application filed by the petitioners on the ground that remedy of revision was available to the petitioners. 3. The petitioners have already filed civil suit for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession ( 3 ) regarding the excess area which is said to have been shown in the name of the respondents due to erroneous implementation of the Consolidation Scheme. The petitioners have thus availed the alternate remedy. They may also avail alternate remedy of revision if the consolidation record is required to be rectified. The writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable. It is, however, made clear that if it is noticed by the Civil Court, after consideration of the entire record and the evidence, that the petitioners are deprived of part of the agricultural land without grant of compensation, alternate land in lieu of exchange or otherwise permissible under the Consolidation Scheme, the relief about recovery of the possession may be considered. The Scheme though becomes final, yet, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred when the question of title is required to be decided and in no manner, a person can be deprived of the agricultural land without his consent, or by way of compensation or exchange effected as per the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. ( 4 ) 4. Considering the above aspects, the writ petition is dismissed as the other remedy is available to the petitioners. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP624-06