wp2527.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.2527/2011 Orange City Bahu-Uddeshiya Sanstha, Warud -vs- The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Divn.Amravati and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri M.A.Sable, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sonare, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri M.Sharif, counsel for the respondent Nos.8 and 9. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 19.09.2011. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the authorities that the petitioner was not entitled to purchase the property in question under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention Of Fragmentation And Consolidation Of Holdings Act, 1947 is challenged by the petitioner by the instant petition. The petitioner had purchased land belonging to the respondent Nos.4 to 7 for the purpose of school building. An area of 67 ares of land remained with the respondent Nos.4 to 7 and it was the case of the petitioner that the respondent Nos.4 to 7 ought to have sold the same to the petitioner only. The respondent Nos.4 to 7 however sold the remaining land to the respondent No.9 by a registered sale deed. The authorities rejected the claim of the petitioner to purchase the land in question. wp2527.11.odt 2/2 The authorities concurrently held that the land was situated within the municipal area of Warud and hence, there was no restriction of alienation and sub-division of the land in view of the provisions of Section 31 of the Bombay Prevention Of Fragmentation And Consolidation Of Holdings Act, 1947. The authorities further found that the land was irrigated land and was therefore not a fragment. The findings recorded by both the authorities are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. Moreover, the land is already purchased by the respondent No.9 and the respondent No.9 is not desirous of selling the land to anybody, much less to the petitioner in this case. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE