1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No..3595/2010 Dilip Krushnarao Nerkar and others Vs. Dy. Director of Land Records, Amravati and otheers. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. Pradeep Mahalle, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kankale, AGP for respondents 1 and 3. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 30TH AUGUST, 2010. 1] Heard Advocate Mahalle for the petitioners and AGP Kankale for respondents 1 and 2. Respondent no.3 has chosen not to appear though served with notice. 2] Looking to the nature of controversy, I find that the petitioners are apprehending use of city survey records against him in pending Civil Appeal. Advocate Mahalle has pointed out that correction in those records was obtained illegally in 1993 behind the back of the petitioners and area of city survey 1233 belongs to respondent no.3 was increased. Corresponding reduction in area of property of the petitioners was procured illegally in 2003 and while doing it there is no fresh application of mind. He points out that only because of 1993 survey the area of the property in possession of the petitioners is reduced. He has urged that neither in 1993 nor 2003 the petitioners were noticed by City Survey 2 Office. 3] He has also invited attention to the judgment of the Civil Court to urge that only because of this increase in area in possession of respondent no.3 and decrease in area of the petitioners, a finding of encroachment has been delivered. 4] Learned A.G.P. has pointed out that the findings recorded in R.C.S. No. 56/1996 the petitioners filed Civil Appeal and that appeal is pending before the competent Court of law. 5] It is apparent that the City Survey Records and Records of Measurement are not conclusive and binding. Advocate Mahalle has, at this stage, invited attention to cross-examination of two Surveyors. I am not inclined to comment on the said cross-examinations as it is for Appellate Court to look into the same. The said record by themselves cannot affect the title and entitlement of the present petitioners. 6] Advocate Mahalle has contended that in any view of the matter, here the petitioners have also way back in the year 2007 filed Revision for rectifying these errors and by treating the said revision as an appeal erroneously, limitation has been applied. Again I do not find it necessary to consider this aspect. Adjudication 3 even in favour of petitioner is not binding on Civil Court. The other arguments being advanced by Advocate Mahalle before this Court are available before and are required to be looked into by the Appellate Court while considering the grievance of the petitioners in the matter. Said Court has to reach its own conclusion on the basis of appreciation of evidence led before it by the parties in accordance with law. It is cannot mechanically accept the revenue records. I do not find any prejudice being caused to the petitioners in the matter at this stage. Writ Petition is thus disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.