IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.10286 OF 2010. Katthu Holya Gavit. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS Mainabai Davya Gavit and ors. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri Magare Ajaykumar G., Advocate for Petitioner. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 16th November, 2010. PER COURT: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. He invited my attention to the findings recorded by the trial Court and submitted that the trial Court, taking into consideration the 7/12 extract and other documents placed on record, had allowed the application of the petitioner. However, the lower appellate Court, without considering the documents and without discussing on the point as to who is in possession of the suit land, has set aside the order of the trial Court and allowed the appeal filed by the defendant. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that this matter requires consideration. 2. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, perused the grounds raised in the petition, annexures thereto. From perusal of the impugned judgment and pleadings before the Court below, it appears that there was a dispute as to whether the suit land was ancestral or self-acquired. However, it is not disputed that Holya Dasrya father of the plaintiff and the defendants was possessing the suit lands. It is also not in dispute that on 1.4.1981 Holya Dasrya had executed M.E. No.159 whereby the land Gat Nos.93/2, 93/3, 93/4 were allotted to Mainabai, Sakubai and Devkibai (defendant Nos.1 to 3). The 7/12 extracts on the record disclosed that from 1980-1981 till 1987-1988 the suit lands were occupied and cultivated by these defendants. It appears that on 2nd November, 1995 some proceeding was taken out before the revenue authorities and it was shown that the defendants surrendered their rights in the suit land in favour of their brother Kathhu the plaintiff. This mutation was sanctioned on 28th November, 1995 and it had been challenged by the defendants before SDO by preferring an appeal. SDO by order dated 6th April, 2000 cancelled this mutation entry. The plaintiff filed appeal before the Additional Collector. The same was decided on 28th February, 2001 and thereby the order of the SDO was cancelled and mutation was restored. The Additional Commissioner in revision No.6/2002 set aside the order of Additional Collector and restored the order of the SDO. Thus, ultimate decision of the revenue authorities with regard to M.E. No.284 was in favour of the defendants. Therefore, the position which stands as on today is that M.E. NO.159 executed by Holya Dasrya on 1.4.1981 is intact. 3. The appellate Court has considered the the rival submissions and the evidence brought on record and after considering the effect of M.E. No.159 and also M.E. No.284 and more particularly, the decision of the Additional Commissioner with regard to M.E. No.282 being in favour of the defendants, allowed the Misc. Civil Appeal No.11/2010 filed by the respondents herein. In my considered opinion, possible view has been taken by the District Court, Nandurbar in allowing the appeal. 4. In this view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the writ petition. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*