Sau Kamalbai Sanjivanrao Ahankari v. Smt Mehrunnisa Musakhan Pathan And Another

wp12582.17 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12582 OF 2017 SAU KAMALBAI SANJIVANRAO AHANKARI

VERSUS

SMT MEHRUNNISA MUSAKHAN PATHAN AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Rajiv B. .....

CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.

DATED : 7th NOVEMBER, 2017 PER COURT:- 1.

There is no substance in the writ petition. By way of filing application Exh.100 in R.C.S. No. 333 of 2004, the plaintiff sought to issue directions to the Taluka Inspector of Land Record to carry out re-measurement of plots. Learned Judge of the trial court by its impugned order dated 8.11.2016 rejected the said application Exh.100. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-original plaintiff submits that though the T.I.L.R. has submitted a map before the court, he did not show demarcation of boundaries between plot Nos. 6 and 7. The original plaintiff therefore, filed an application Exh.100 before the trial court for directing remeasurement of the plots. 3.

On perusal of copy of map placed on record, it appears that the Court Commissioner i.e. T.I.L.R. has mentioned the area of plots in possession of the plaintiff as well as defendants separately and also shown

wp12582.17 -2the disputed portion in the map. It is thus for the trial court to draw appropriate inference in terms of the map produced before the Court. 4.

In view of the same, fresh direction for re-measurement of plots by T.I.L.R. are unwarranted and uncalled for. The Trial court has rightly rejected application Exh.100. I do not find any fault in the impugned order. There is no substance in the writ petition. Writ petition is hereby dismissed. No costs.

( V. K. JADHAV, J.) rlj/