1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 29-04-2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been rejected and orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional Collector have been confirmed.

3. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner herein is that the proceedings initiated before the Sub-Divisional Officer for partition/correction of record of rights under Section 85 of the Code by the respondent no.1 herein was not maintainable in view of a civil suit filed by the petitioner prior in point of time concerning the property in question. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner have concurrently rejected the said objection of the petitioner and the application of respondent no.1 under Section 85 of the Code has been granted.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he had filed a suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.3 of 2013 for decree of declaration that Sale Deed dated 16-06-2012 executed by the defendant nos. 2 and 3 in the said suit in favour of the defendant no.4 (respondent no.1) herein was not binding on the petitioner and further for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making construction on any portion of the suit property. The suit property is 1.58 acres and 2.57 acres of land in mouza Mul, District Chandrapur which was purchased by the petitioner (plaintiff in the said suit) and his own cousin Ramkumar (defendant no.1 in the suit) by registered Sale Deed dated 08-06-1959. The said property was jointly owned by them and it was so recorded in the record of rights. It was the case of the petitioner that there had been no partition between him and defendant no.1 concerning the said property and when it was found that the respondent no.1 (defendant no.4) had started some construction activity in a portion of the said suit land, on enquiries made by the petitioner, it was found that the defendant no.1 had allegedly gifted portion of the suit land to defendant nos. 2 and 3, who in turn had sold specific portion of the suit land by registered Sale Deed dated 16-06-2012 in favour of the defendant no.4 (respondent no.1) herein. This was the cause of action for the petitioner to file the aforesaid suit on 29-04-2015. The relevant pleadings in the said suit filed by the petitioner read as follows :

“(02) The defendant no.4 Santosh Ravat had visited the suit property and said defendant no.4 Santosh Ravat had directed their persons to stock the material and to start construction activities on the open space i.e. part of the suit land. The plaintiff's power of attorney holder enquired about the same from defendant no.4 and at the relevant time the plaintiff's power of attorney was informed by said defendant no.4 that he had purchased the property from Dharamsingh and Nareshkumar in the month of June 2012. The plaintiff enquired about the same and also applied for getting certified copies of the documents and on receipt of the same, came to know that Santosh Ravat had purchased the property from Dharamsingh and Nareshkumar by registered sale deed registered at serial no.543 dated 16/06/2012.

(03) The defendant no. 1 is/was the joint owner of the property along with plaintiff and as such the Dharamsingh and Nareshkumar cannot sale out the property to the defendant no.4. Similarly from the revenue record especially the ferfar panji no.1555 dated 15/09/2001 it came to the notice that the defendant no.1 had executed gift deed to the extent of 1344 square meters. From the revenue record especially ferfar panji no.5012 dated 30/01/2011 reveals that some document I.e correction deed was executed & the name of ShriKrishna Rice Mill, Prop. Dharamsingh was to be