BALWANTRAO BHAGWANTRAO DESHMUKH Vs. MANKARNABAI CHAITUJI GOSAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Ingley, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mohta, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Shri Kankale, learned AGP for respondent No. 3.

(2.) After hearing respective counsel, it is apparent that availability of a fragment under Section 7 of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 1947 Act) is not in dispute. Sale of fragment i.e. Survey No. 71 by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2 is also not in dispute.

(3.) Shri Ingley, learned counsel has contended that original Survey No. 7 of village Gaulkhed, Panaj, Tq. Akot, District Akola, was divided into three portions i.e. Survey No. 7/1 of Respondent No. 1, Survey No. 7/1 A of petitioner and Survey No. 7/3 of one Badshahi Jumma Masjid Sansthan. He invites attention to rough sketch filed as Annexure C to show location of these sub divisions of Survey No. 7 and to show that Survey No. 8 is outside Survey No. 7 and it belongs to Respondent No. 2. He relies upon the provisions of Section 7(1) read with Section 14 of 1947 Act to contend that sale deed executed by Respondent No. 1 in favour of Respondent No. 2 in relation to Survey No. 7/1 on 16.05.1985 is illegal and cannot sustain. According to him, sale has to be to a contiguous owner in the same survey number i.e. Survey No. 7. He argues that Respondent No. 2, who is not an owner of any recognized sub division of Survey No. 7, therefore, cannot be legally accepted as contiguous owner. If sale in his favour is upheld, the provisions of 1947 Act are defeated.