1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4524 OF 2011 Shri Sambhaji Chandar Shinde & Ors ..Petitioners Vs Shri Hari Kondiba Patil and ors ..Respondents Shri Prashant S Bhavake, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.A.Desai, Advocate for respondent no.1. Ms.P.S.Cardozo,AGP, for the State. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 18/07/2011 PC: 1. Having heard both sides at some length, I am of the opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent orders which, essentially, proceed on the basis that the disputes between the parties are boundary dispute. The petitioner's advocate, however, argues that this cannot be considered to be a boundary dispute and the application filed by the first respondent was not maintainable under section 138 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. His argument is that the dispute arises because of implementation of a scheme under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. He states that an application is pending before the Deputy Director of Land Records. During the pendency of such application, the authorities should not have T 2 taken any cognizance of the application made by the first respondent and made the impugned orders. 2. In my view, the authorities committed no error in treating the application filed by the first respondent as invoking section 138 of the M.L.R.Code, 1966, particularly because the Deputy Director of Land Records has not made any order on the pending proceedings. The proceedings initiated at the instance of the petitioners are pending from 2002 and 2003. In the absence of any order under the Fragmentation Act, both, the SDO and the Commissioner did not commit any error and, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with their orders. However, since the petitioners are proceeding on the basis that the dispute is under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act and the application is pending before the Deputy Director of Land Records, Pune Division Pune, interest of justice would be served if it is directed that the final orders in the present proceedings and which are impugned in this petition shall not become operative or effective for a period of six weeks from today. Within this period, the Deputy Director of Land Records, Pune Division, Pune shall dispose of the pending application. All contentions of the parties in that behalf are kept open. Needless to clarify that the first respondent can enforce the orders under challenge if the petitioners are unable to obtain any order in the pending 3 application before the Deputy Director of Land Records. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) 4