1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4460 OF 2010 (Bhagwantrao Sonaji Gawande vs. Sheshrao T. Sontakke & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 02, 2010. Heard Shri Mohta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Zoting, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the impugned order. According to Shri Mohta, learned counsel, there is a Gazette Notification dated 17.05.1962 extending provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to Consolidation Act), to entire Akola district. In view of this notification, according to the learned counsel, report submitted by Tahsildar informing that there was no Consolidation Scheme in 1997-98 at Mouza – Titwa where suit land is situated is incorrect and not relevant. The trial Court has considered this aspect and found that in view of the report, burden is upon the petitioner – plaintiff to show that the provisions of Fragmentation Act are attracted in the matter. It is apparent that the plaintiff has to lead 2 appropriate evidence to point out that the Scheme was so implemented or in the alternative even in the absence of Scheme, provisions of that Act are applicable. At present, I do not find any prejudice caused to the petitioner by impugned order. Writ Petition is rejected. No order as to costs. As the suit is of the year 1997, the same is expedited and trial Court will try to expedite the same at the earliest. JUDGE *GS.