1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 712 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1590 OF 2007 SATISH J. DATTANI .. APPELLANT Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Rajiv Narula i/b Jhangiani Narula & Assoc. for appellant Ms. Geeta Shastri, AGP for R-1 to 3. Mr. Hiralal Thakker i/b Mrs. R. R. Matkar for R-4 CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & K. K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 29/9/2008 P.C. . The original petitioner has challenged in this appeal order dated 3/9/07 passed by learned Single Judge whereby his writ petition directed against an order of remand passed by the State Government directing the Collector to decide the matter afresh after giving sufficient opportunity to the parties was dismissed. The entire dispute revolves around 2 sub-division of Survey No. 6 (part) of Goregaon which is more particularly described in the 1st schedule to sale deed dated 23/9/1971. 2. Learned Single has dismissed the writ petition by observing that disputed questions of facts which are involved in this matter cannot be examined and/or gone into by this court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has further observed that no case for interference with the order of remand passed by the State Minister is made out. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length. Learned counsel contended that at least on two earlier occasions the exercise of demarcating the land and fixing the boundaries was carried out. He pointed out that in fact during the pendency of this appeal by order dated 10th July, 2008 the Division Bench presided over by Justice Mhase had directed Taluka Inspector Land Record (TILR) Goregaon, Taluka Borivali to measure the land and submit a map to this court. Learned counsel pointed out that accordingly TILR has measured the land. When the measurement was done the representatives of both sides were present. He 3 pointed out that TILR has submitted his report to this court. That report needs to be accepted. Learned counsel submitted that, it is, therefore, not necessary to remand the matter again for re-inquiry. 4. Learned counsel for respondent 4 on the other hand has drawn our attention to the affidavit of Mr. Sayeed Afsarali, qualified surveyor of land and properties. He submitted that the survey and measurement of land carried out pursuant to the order passed by the presided over by Justice Mhase suffers from many infirmities. He drew our attention to paragraph 2 of the said affidavit. We deem it appropriate to quote paragraph 2; . "2. I have perused the plan prepared by Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Mumbai Suburban District in respect of the measurement of suit land situated at Village Goregaon. I say that the said Plan has the following infirmities: . (a) The Plan does not show any fixed points or structures existing on the suit land or near about the suit land. There is, therefore, no reference in relation to which the property claimed by the 4 Appellant can be identified. . (b) The said Plan does not show the existing location of a bridge constructed on 120’ wide road in the absolute close proximity of the suit property. . (c) The colour scheme given on the Plan is misleading in as much as though no colour has been given on the Plan, the notes to the Plan specifies colours given to different properties. The basic principle, therefore, of explaining the Plan with the help of notes is defeated". Learned counsel submitted that, therefore, it is necessary that the entire exercise should be re-done again as directed by the 3rd respondent. 5. Before we proceed to deal with the merits of the case, we direct that the report of TILR which is submitted pursuant to the order of this court be taken on record and marked "A". 6. It is pertinent to note that the 3rd respondent has in his order stated that the dispute involved in this matter, is of such a nature that the 5 parties should get it decided by approaching the civil court. Learned Single Judge has also stated that, the disputed questions of facts involved in this matter cannot be gone into by this court. We respectfully concur with this view. 7. We are however, of the opinion, that it is not necessary to confirm the order of remand. As we have already observed, at least on two earlier occasions, the exercise of taking measurements and making boundaries has been done. Pursuant to this court’s order again measurements of the land have been taken. TILR has submitted his report to this court. It appears that the 4th respondent is not happy with this report also. It is pertinent to note that the sub-division order is dated 10/1/92. It is, therefore, not possible for us to confirm the order of remand. If the 4th respondent is dissatisfied by the measurements and sub-division, he may, if he so desires get the issue settled from the civil court. 8. In the circumstances of this case, in our opinion, following order will meet the ends of justice; 6 . The impugned order dated 3/9/07 is set aside; . Respondent 4 may, if he so desires file a civil suit in the appropriate court raising all contentions which he has set out in affidavit of Mr. Afsarali or any other contentions. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on any of the contentions raised by respondent 4. Needless to say that respondent 4 can also pray for interim relief i.e. stay of the order of sub-division and if such an application is made, the court seized of the matter will decide it independently and in accordance with law. . All contentions of both sides are kept open. . Appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms. 9. Learned AGP Ms. Shastri states that the State has furnished A-sheet and B-sheet. On the State furnishing xerox copies of A-sheet and B-sheet the originals may be handed over to the State. JUDGE JUDGE