Diksha Rane 12 WP 4938 2016.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4938/2016 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2560/2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4938/2016 SHRI. SHAILESH HARIBHAU NIKAM & ANR ..PETITIONERS VS SHRI. RAMESH PARSHURAM NIKAM & ORS ..RESPONDENTS Adv. Pradeep M. Patil a/w. Adv. Pravinchand B. Gole for petitioners. Adv. Manish Bora for respondent no.1. Adv. Pratik Deomore a/w. Adv. Aasmi Rane for respondent nos.4 & 5. Adv. Rohan Deshmukh for respondent no.6. Shri Y. D. Patil, AGP for respondent – State. CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026. Per Court : 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners points out page 19 of the petition and submits that the consent given by respondent no.6 was only for fixation of boundaries. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is fraud played on respondent no.6 and instead of merely fixing 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026 2026:BHC-AS:36718 Diksha Rane 12 WP 4938 2016.docx the boundaries the authorities have carried out measurements of the property which was not consented to. However, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6 submits that there is no fraud played upon them, and they had clearly given consent for measurements of the land and not merely for fixation of the boundaries. 3. The petitioners have purchased the property in the year 2013 undisputedly. Considering this, the petitioners cannot submit that the fraud was played upon respondent no.6. The petitioners have purchased the property after the demarcations with open eyes. Hence, no case can be canvassed before me that there was fraud upon respondent no.6. Accordingly, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned orders. The present petition stands dismissed. 4. In sequel, the interim applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026 Signed by: Diksha Rane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 07/09/2026 20:02:13