1 wp618.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 618 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.R. Irale-Patil, Advocate for respondent no.2. 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Nagargoje for the petitioners- original defendants and Advocate Mr. Irale Patil for respondent no.2. After hearing the respective Counsel, it is apparent that both are on same side. 2. Shri. Nagargoje for petitioners contends that T.I.L.R. carried out measurement and then has drawn map which reveals possession of the petitioners over disputed portion. That map of T.I.L.R. was not challenged before the Competent Authority and hence was binding upon the Civil Court. Trial Court as well as appellate Court ignored it only because of alleged non-service of notice upon the respondent no.1-plaintiff before such measurement. He states that in his statement recorded before the trial Court, the respondent-plaintiff has 2 wp618.11 accepted that he was aware about such measurement. It is further contended that the said statement also shows his unawareness about the exact extent of land in his possession. The respondent-plaintiff accepted that land in his possession may be 5 Acres. According to learned Counsel only 4 acres land was sold to him vide sale deed dated 05.06.1974 and another sale deed dated 05.07.1974 in relation to 2 acres of land was only a loan transaction. The land 2 acres that always remained in possession of the petitioners. The respondent no.2, who claims to be adjacent owner is supporting the petitioners. 3. I find that the Courts have considered this arguments. Sale deed dated 05.06.1974 is not in dispute between the parties. Sale deed dated 05.07.1974 was not disputed by executant namely Bhalchandra i.e. father of the present petitioners during his life time at any point of time. This fact has weighed with both Courts. 4. The map showing possession of the petitioners on disputed portion can not be said to be binding on Civil Court and the fact of service of notice before preparing that map upon the respondent no.1 is yet not established. At the most, what is brought on record is the fact of knowledge to him of proposed measurement. Such knowledge by itself can not be used against the respondent no.1-plaintiff. 3 wp618.11 5. The Courts have therefore rightly applied mind to the facts presented and concurrently recorded the findings against the petitioners. In limited jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere in the Petition, therefore, the Petition is rejected. 6. Considering the nature of controversy, the proceedings in the Suit are expedited and the trial Court shall attempt to decide the same at the earliest. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 27.01.2011 gas/wp618.11