Dismissed

Dhondiram Narayan Halawe and Others. v. Pandurang Bhagwant Naik and Others.

Bombay HC18 Jan 2011WP/2094/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal order was dismissed as abated. Court rejected applications for condonation of delay in substituting legal heirs due to inordinate delay and lack of satisfactory explanation. Held that the cause of action being joint and indivisible, death of any respondent causes total abatement.

What did the court decide?

Civil applications for condonation of delay rejected. Writ petition dismissed as abated against all respondents. Rule discharged.

Dhondiram Narayan Halawe and Others. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990 WITH

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999
AND 1000 OF 2006

¶7

***

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶9

Dhondiram S/o Narayan Havle, Age: about 58 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o: Pathra, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶10

Asru S/o Sona Ghodke, Aged about 59 years, Occu. & R/o as above No.1.

¶11

Dada S/o Namdeo Havle, Aged about 57 years,

¶12

Haribhau S/o Balbhim Havle, Aged about 58 years,

¶13

Nagurao S/o Baburao Havle, Aged about 59 years,

¶14

Mahadu S/o Aba Havle, Aged about 58 years,

¶15

Pandurang S/o Narhari Havle, Aged about 59 years,

¶16

Babasaheb S/o Pandhari Havle, Aged about 57 years,

¶17

Dada S/o Namdeo Jadhav, dead through Legal Representatives. a) Kalyan S/o Dada Jadhav, Aged about 35 years, R/o: Pothra, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶18

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶20

b) Ramchandra S/o Dada Jadhav, Aged about 30 years,

¶21

c) Abhimanyu S/o Dada Jadhav, Aged about 25 years.

¶22

d) Smt. Tahnabai W/o Dada Jadhav, Aged about 65 years.

¶23

Sudam S/o Sitaram Havle, dead through his Legal Representatives.

¶24

a) Radhabai W/o Gorakh Naikwade, Aged about 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Chausala, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶25

b) Asrabai W/o Baba Khakre, Aged about 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sawargaon, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶26

c) Kesarbai D/o Sudam, W/o Atmaram Khakre, Aged about 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sawargaon, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶27

d) Moharbai D/o Sudam, W/o Maroti Khakare, Aged about 25 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sawargaon, T1. & Dist. Beed.

¶28

Babu S/o Namdeo Havle, dead through Legal Representatives:

¶29

a) Govind S/o Babu Havle, Aged about 30 years, Occu. Agri., R/o Pathra, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶30

Kashinath S/o Gena Havle, Aged: about 58 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶31

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶33

WITH

¶34

CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶35

Bhagwan S/oGanpati Havle, Aged about 60 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶36

Sukhdeo S/o Ranuji Havle, dead through Legal Representatives:

¶37

a) Abasaheb S/o Sukhdeo, Aged about 50 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Maspur-Pothra, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶38

b) Babu S/o Sukhadeo, Aged about 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Masapur-Pothra, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶39

c) Asrabai D/o Sukhadeo, W/o Vithal Jagtap, Aged about 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Palsingan, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶40

Deorao S/o Tatyaba Hiwale, Aged: about 55 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Marshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶41

Dharma S/o Santouba Havle, Aged about 59 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶42

Dharma S/o Gena Pathade, Aged about 57 years, Occu.: Agri;, R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶43

Asru S/o Ranga Hawale, Aged about 55 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶44

Asruba S/o Nivratti Hawavel, Aged: about 58 years, Occu.: Agri., Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶45

¶46

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶47

Ganpati Bala - dead through his Legal Representatives:

¶48

A) Anna S/o Ganpati Halve, dead through his Legal Repres.

¶49

A) Smt. Indirabai Widow of Anna Aged about 45 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Murshadpur-Pothra, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶50

B) Navnath S/o Anna, Aged about 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o : As above (A).

¶51

C) Anand S/o Anna. Aged about 20 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o : As above (A).

¶52

D) Manik S/o Anna, Aged about 15 years, Occu.: Nil, Minor under guardianship of his real mother Indirabai W/o Anna, as above No.A.

¶53

E) Rambhau S/o Anna, Aged about 12 years, Occu.: Nil, Minor under guardianship of his real mother Indirabai W/o Anna, as above No.A.

¶54

Vithoba S/o Kundlik Havle, Aged: about 59 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶55

Bhika S/o Nivratti Havle, Aged: about 55 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶56

Shamrao S/o Sakharam Havle, dead through his L.R.

¶57

A) Govind S/o Shamrao Havle, Aged about 47 years, Occu.:

¶58

¶59

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶60

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶61

Agri., R/o Pothra, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶62

Kishan S/o Gena Havle, dead through his Legal Representatives: A) Padminibai W/o Kishan Havle, Age about 40 years, Occ.: Agri., R/o: Pothra, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶63

Babu S/o Yada Bagal, Dead through his Legal Representatives:

¶64

A) Raibhan S/o Babu Bagal, Aged about 45 years, R/o Pothra, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶65

Namdeo S/o Pandhari Havle, dead through his legal representatives,

¶66

A) Phulabai W/o Namdeo, Aged: about 55 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Murshdpur-Pothra, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶67

B) Sajarbai D/o Namdeo W/o Bajirao Surwase, Aged about 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Kumbhari, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶68

Babu S/o Dhondiba Havle, dead through his legal representatives:

¶69

A) Asru S/o Babu Havle, Aged about 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶70

B) Dattu S/o Babu Havle, Aged about 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o as above (A).

¶71

C) Lahu S/o Babu Havle, Aged about 32 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o as above (A).

¶72

D) Rohidas S/o Babu Havle, Aged about 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o as above (A).

¶73

¶74

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶75

E) Smt. Bhagubai W/o Baburao Havle, Aged about 70 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o As above (A). ... PETITIONERS. [ORIG.RESPONDENTS]

¶76

VERSUS

¶77

Pandurang S/o Bhagwant Naik, Thigale, Aged about 67 years, Occ.: Nil, R/o Subhash Road, Beed. [Dismissed vide Court's order' dated 28.11.2005].

¶78

Trivikram S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Aged about 62 years, Occu.: & R/o : As above No.1. [Dismieed as per Addl. Regr.'s order dated 6.8.92].

¶79

Bhanudas S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Aged about 38 years, Occu.: Govt. Service, R/o: At present at Rajura (Manikgad), Tq. & Dist. Chandrapur.

¶80

Aniruddha S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Aged about 34 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Datta Galli, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶81

Upendra S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Aged; about 26 years, Occu.: Service, R/o: Datta Galli, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed. [Dismissed as per Addl. Regr.'s order dt. 6.7.92].

¶82

Surendra S/o Kamlakar Naik Thigale, Aged: about 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o: Thigale Galli, Beed. Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶83

Ravindra S/o Kamlakar Naik Thigale, Aged about 30 years, Occu.: R/o Thigale Galli, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶84

¶85

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶86

Satyendra S/o Kamlakar Naik Thigale, Aged about 20 years, Occu.: & R/o: Thigale Galli, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed. ...

¶87

... RESPONDENTS [ORIG. RESPONDENTS] ***

¶88

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.: 995 OF 2006

¶89

1. Dhondiram S/o Narayan Havle, Deceased:

¶90

1/A Shahu S/o Dhondiram Havle, Aged 58 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur,

¶91

Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶92

1/B Pinubai W/o Jalindar Dhengle, Aged 55 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶93

1/C Rajabhau S/o Dhondiram Havle, Age 50 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶94

1/D Yashoda W/o Bhausaheb Havle, Aged: 48 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶95

Asru S/o Sona Ghodke, Aged 69 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PothraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶96

Dada S/o Namdeo Havle, Aged 67 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PothraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶97

Haribhau S/o Balbhim Havle, Deceased.

¶98

¶99

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶100

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶101

Nagurao S/o Baburao Havle, Aged 68 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PothraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶102

Mahadu S/o Aba Havle, Aged 68 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PothraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶103

Pandurang S/o Narhari Havle, Deceased

¶104

Babasaheb S/o Pandhari Havle, Aged 70 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PothraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶105

Dada S/o Namdeo Jadhav, dead through his L.Rs. 9/A. Kalyan S/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 45 years, Occ.:Agri.,R/o: PothraMurshadpur,Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶106

9/B.Ramchandra S/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 40 years, Occ.:Agri.,R/o: PothraMurshadpur,Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶107

9/C.Abhimanyu S/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 35 years. Occ.:Agri.,R/o: PothraMurshadpur,Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶108

9/D.Smt. Tahnubai W/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 65 years. Occu.: Household, R/o PathraMurshdapur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶109

Sudam S/o Sitaram Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶110

¶111

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶112

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶113

10/A.Radhabai W/o Gorakh Naikwade,

¶114

Aged 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Chausala, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶115

10/B.Asrabai W/o Baba Khakare, Aged 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sawargaon, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶116

10/C.Kesarbai W/o Atmaram Khakre, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sawargaon, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶117

10/D.Moharbai W/o Maroti Khakre, Aged 25 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sawargaon, T1. & Dist. Beed.

¶118

Babu S/o Namdeo Havle, deceased his L.Rs.

¶119

11/A.Govind S/o Babu Havle, Aged 30 years, Occu. Agri., R/o Pathra, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶120

Kashinath S/o Gena Havle, Deceased.

¶121

Bhagwan S/oGanpati Havle, Aged 75 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o Pothra, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶122

Sukhdeo S/o Ranuji Havle, Deceased, through His. L.Rs.

¶123

14/A.Abasaheb S/o Sukhdeo Havle, Aged 50 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶124

14/B.Babu S/o Sukhadeo Havle, Aged 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶125

¶126

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶127

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶128

14/C.Asrabai W/o Vithal Jagtap, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Palsingan, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶129

Deorao S/o Tatyaba Hiwale, Aged: 70 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Marshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶130

Dharma S/o Santouba Havle, Deceased

¶131

Dharma S/o Gena Pathade, Aged 70 years, Occu.: Agri;, R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶132

Ashru S/o Ranga Hawale, Aged 70 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶133

Ashru S/o Nivratti Hawavel, Aged: 62 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶134

Ganpati Bala Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶135

20/A) Anna S/o Ganpati Halve, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶136

20/AA. Indirabai W/o Anna Havle, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶137

20/AB. Navnath S/o Anna Havle, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶138

20/AC. Anand S/o Anna Havle, Aged 30 years, Occ.: Household,

¶139

¶140

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶141

Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶142

20/AD. Manik S/o Anna Havle, Aged 30 years, Occ.: Household, Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶143

20/AE. Rambhau S/o Anna Havle, Aged 25 years, Occu.:Occ.: Household, Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶144

Vithoba S/o Kundlik Havle, Aged: 74 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶145

Bhika S/o Nivratti Havle, Aged: 70 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶146

Shamrao S/o Sakharam Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶147

23/A.Govind S/o Shamrao Havle, Aged 47 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pathra, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶148

Kishan S/o Gena Havle, deceased through his L.Rs.

¶149

24/A.Padminibai W/o Kishan Havle, Age 50 years, Occ.: Household, R/o: Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶150

Babu S/o Yada Bagal, Deceased through His L.Rs.

¶151

25/A.Raibhan S/o Baby Bagal, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Agri., R/a Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶152

Namdeo S/o Pandhari Havle, Deceased through His L.Rs.

¶153

¶154

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶155

26/A.Phulabai W/o Namdeo, Havle, Aged: 55 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o -Pathra-Murshdpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶156

26/B.Sajarbai W/o Bajirao Survase, Aged 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Kumbhari, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶157

Babu S/o Dhondiba Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶158

27/A).Ashru S/o Babu Havle, Aged 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshdapur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶159

27/B.Dattu S/o Babu Havle, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. Dist. Beed.

¶160

27/C.Lahu S/o Babu Havle, Aged 32 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. Dist. Beed.

¶161

28/D.Rohidas S/o Babu Havle, Aged 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. Dist. Beed.

¶162

28/E.Smt. Bhagubai W/o Baburao Havle, Aged 70 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq/ & Dist. Beed. ... APPLICANTS [ORIG.PETITIONERSRESPONDENTS].

¶163

VERSUS

¶164

Pandurang S/o Bhagwant Naik, Deceased.

¶165

¶166

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶167

Trivikram S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Deceased.

¶168

Bhanudas S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Aged 55 years, Occu.: Service, R/o: Rajura (Manikgad), Tq. & Dist. Chandrapur.

¶169

Aniruddha S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Aged 50 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Datta Galli, Beed Dist. Beed.

¶170

Upendra S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Aged; 40 years, Occu.: Service, R/o: Datta Galli, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶171

Surendra S/o Kamlakar Naik Thigale, Aged: 50 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o: Thigale Galli, Beed. Dist. Beed.

¶172

Ravindra S/o Kamlakar Naik Thigale, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o Thigale Galli, Beed, Dist. Beed.

¶173

Satyendra S/o Kamlakar Naik Thigale, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o: Thigale Galli, Beed, Dist. Beed. ... NON-APPLICANT [ORIG. RESPONDENTS - REVISION PETITIONER] ***

¶174

AND

¶175

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.: 996 OF 2006 IN

¶176

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶177

1. Dhondiram S/o Narayan Havle, Deceased:

¶178

Ashru S/o Sona Ghodke, Aged 69 years, Occu. Agri., R/o Pathra-

¶179

¶180

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶181

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶182

Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶183

Dada S/o Namdeo Havle, Aged 67 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PothraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶184

Haribhau S/o Balbhim Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶185

4/A. Sow. Chandrabhaga W/o Hariba Havle, Age 65 years, Occu.: Househgold, R/o. Patha-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶186

4/A Gayabai W/o Sudam More, Age 45 yrs., Occu.: Household, R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶187

4/A Bapu S/o Hariba Havle, Aged 40 yrs., Occu.: Agri., R/o. Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶188

Nagurao S/o Baburao Havle, Aged 68 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PothraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶189

Mahadu S/o Aba Havle, Aged 68 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PothraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶190

Pandurang S/o Narhari Havle, Deceased

¶191

Babasaheb S/o Pandhari Havle, Aged 70 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PothraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶192

¶193

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶194

Dada S/o Namdeo Jadhav, dead through his L.Rs. 9/A. Kalyan S/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 45 years, Occ.:Agri.,R/o: PothraMurshadpur,Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶195

9/B.Ramchandra S/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 40 years, Occ.:Agri.,R/o: PothraMurshadpur,Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶196

9/C.Abhimanyu S/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 35 years. Occ.:Agri.,R/o: PothraMurshadpur,Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶197

9/D.Smt. Tahnubai W/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 65 years. Occu.: Household, R/o PathraMurshdapur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶198

Sudam S/o Sitaram Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶199

10/A.Radhabai W/o Gorakh Naikwade, Aged 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Chausala, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶200

10/B.Asrabai W/o Baba Khakare, Aged 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sawargaon, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶201

10/C.Kesarbai W/o Atmaram Khakre, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sawargaon, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶202

10/D.Moharbai W/o Maroti Khakre, Aged 25 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sawargaon, T1. & Dist. Beed.

¶203

Babu S/o Namdeo Havle,

¶204

¶205

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶206

deceased his L.Rs.

¶207

11/A.Govind S/o Babu Havle, Aged 30 years, Occu. Agri., R/o Pathra, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶208

Kashinath S/o Gena Havle, Deceased.

¶209

Bhagwan S/oGanpati Havle, Aged 75 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶210

Sukhdeo S/o Ranuji Havle, Deceased, through His. L.Rs.

¶211

14/A.Abasaheb S/o Sukhdeo Havle, Aged 50 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶212

14/B.Babu S/o Sukhadeo Havle, Aged 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶213

14/C.Asrabai W/o Vithal Jagtap, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Palsingan, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶214

Deorao S/o Tatyaba Hiwale, Aged: 70 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Marshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶215

Dharma S/o Santouba Havle, Deceased

¶216

Dharma S/o Gena Pathade, Aged 70 years, Occu.: Agri;, R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶217

Ashru S/o Ranga Hawale, Aged 70 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur,

¶218

¶219

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶220

Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶221

Ashru S/o Nivratti Hawavel, Aged: 62 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶222

Ganpati Bala Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶223

20/A) Anna S/o Ganpati Halve, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶224

20/AA. Indirabai W/o Anna Havle, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶225

20/AB. Navnath S/o Anna Havle, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶226

20/AC. Anand S/o Anna Havle, Aged 30 years, Occ.: Household, Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶227

20/AD. Manik S/o Anna Havle, Aged 30 years, Occ.: Household, Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶228

20/AE. Rambhau S/o Anna Havle, Aged 25 years, Occu.:Occ.: Household, Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶229

Vithoba S/o Kundlik Havle, Aged: 74 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶230

Bhika S/o Nivratti Havle, Aged: 70 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶231

¶232

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶233

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶234

Shamrao S/o Sakharam Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶235

23/A.Govind S/o Shamrao Havle, Aged 47 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pathra, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶236

Kishan S/o Gena Havle, deceased through his L.Rs.

¶237

24/A.Padminibai W/o Kishan Havle, Age 50 years, Occ.: Household, R/o: Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶238

Babu S/o Yada Bagal, Deceased through His L.Rs.

¶239

25/A.Raibhan S/o Baby Bagal, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Agri., R/a Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶240

Namdeo S/o Pandhari Havle, Deceased through His L.Rs.

¶241

26/A.Phulabai W/o Namdeo Havle, Aged: 55 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o -Pathra-Murshdpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶242

26/B.Sajarbai W/o Bajirao Survase, Aged 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Kumbhari, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶243

Babu S/o Dhondiba Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶244

27/A).Ashru S/o Babu Havle, Aged 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshdapur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶245

27/B.Dattu S/o Babu Havle, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur,

¶246

¶247

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶248

Tq. Dist. Beed.

¶249

27/C.Lahu S/o Babu Havle, Aged 32 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. Dist. Beed.

¶250

28/D.Rohidas S/o Babu Havle, Aged 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. Dist. Beed.

¶251

28/E.Smt. Bhagubai W/o Baburao Havle, Aged 70 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq/ & Dist. Beed. ... APPLICANTS [ORIG.PETITIONERSRESPONDENTS].

¶252

VERSUS

¶253

Pandurang S/o Bhagwant Naik, Deceased.

¶254

Trivikram S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Deceased.

¶255

Bhanudas S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Aged 55 years, Occu.: Service, R/o: Rajura (Manikgad), Tq. & Dist. Chandrapur.

¶256

Aniruddha S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Aged 50 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Datta Galli, Beed Dist. Beed.

¶257

Upendra S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Aged; 40 years, Occu.: Service, R/o: Datta Galli, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶258

Surendra S/o Kamlakar Naik Thigale, Aged: 50 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o: Thigale Galli, Beed. Dist. Beed.

¶259

¶260

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶261

Ravindra S/o Kamlakar Naik Thigale, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o Thigale Galli, Beed, Dist. Beed.

¶262

Satyendra S/o Kamlakar Naik Thigale, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o: Thigale Galli, Beed, Dist. Beed. ... NON-APPLICANT [ORIG. RESPONDENTS-REVISION PETITIONER]

¶263

AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.: 997 OF 2006
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶264

1. Dhondiram S/o Narayan Havle, Deceased:

¶265

Ashru S/o Sona Ghodke, Aged 69 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PathraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶266

Dada S/o Namdeo Havle, Aged 67 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PothraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶267

Haribhau S/o Balbhim Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶268

4/A. Sow. Chandrabhaga W/o Hariba Havle, Age 65 years, Occu.: Househgold, R/o. Patha-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶269

4/A Gayabai W/o Sudam More, Age 45 yrs., Occu.: Household, R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶270

4/A Bapu S/o Hariba Havle, Aged 40 yrs., Occu.: Agri.,

¶271

¶272

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶273

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶274

R/o. Pathra-Murshadpur,

¶275

Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶276

Nagurao S/o Baburao Havle, Aged 68 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PothraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶277

Mahadu S/o Aba Havle, Aged 68 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PothraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶278

Pandurang S/o Narhari Havle, Deceased

¶279

7/A. Sow. Kalawati W/o Pandurang Havle, Age 70 yrs., Occu. Household, R/o. Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶280

7/B. Anant S/o Pandurang Havle, Age 60 yrs., Occu.: Agri., R/o. Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶281

7/C. Sheshrao S/o Pandurang Havle, Age 57 yrs., Occu.: Agri., R/o. Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶282

7/D. Salubai W/o Babasaheb Kadam, Age 54 yrs., Occu.: Household, R/o. Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶283

7/E. Sahebrao S/o Pandurang Havle, Age 50 yrs., Occu.: Agri., R/o. Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶284

7/E. Rambhau S/o Pandurang Havle, Age 57 yrs., Occu. Agri.,' R/o. Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶285

¶286

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶287

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶288

7/F. Sou. Kusumbai W/o Gajendra Navale, Age 40 yrs., Occu. Agri., R/o. Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶289

Babasaheb S/o Pandhari Havle, Aged 70 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PathraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶290

Dada S/o Namdeo Jadhav, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶291

9/A. Kalyan S/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 45 years, Occ.:Agri.,R/o: PathraMurshadpur,Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶292

9/B.Ramchandra S/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 40 years, Occ.:Agri.,R/o: PathraMurshadpur,Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶293

9/C.Abhimanyu S/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 35 years. Occ.:Agri.,R/o: PathraMurshadpur,Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶294

9/D.Smt. Tahnubai W/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 65 years. Occu.: Household, R/o PathraMurshdapur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶295

Sudam S/o Sitaram Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶296

10/A.Radhabai W/o Gorakh Naikwade, Aged 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Chausala, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶297

10/B.Asrabai W/o Baba Khakare, Aged 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sawargaon, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶298

¶299

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶300

10/C.Kesarbai W/o Atmaram Khakre, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sawargaon, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶301

10/D.Moharbai W/o Maroti Khakre, Aged 25 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sawargaon, T1. & Dist. Beed.

¶302

Babu S/o Namdeo Havle, deceased his L.Rs.

¶303

11/A.Govind S/o Babu Havle, Aged 30 years, Occu. Agri., R/o Pathra, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶304

Kashinath S/o Gena Havle, Deceased.

¶305

Bhagwan S/oGanpati Havle, Aged 75 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶306

Sukhdeo S/o Ranuji Havle, Deceased, through His. L.Rs.

¶307

14/A.Abasaheb S/o Sukhdeo Havle, Aged 50 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶308

14/B.Babu S/o Sukhadeo Havle, Aged 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶309

14/C.Asrabai W/o Vithal Jagtap, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Palsingan, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶310

Deorao S/o Tatyaba Hiwale, Aged: 70 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Marshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶311

24 WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶312

Dharma S/o Santouba Havle, Deceased

¶313

Dharma S/o Gena Pathade, Aged 70 years, Occu.: Agri;, R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶314

Ashru S/o Ranga Hawale, Aged 70 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶315

Ashru S/o Nivratti Hawavel, Aged: 62 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶316

Ganpati Bala Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶317

20/A) Anna S/o Ganpati Halve, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶318

20/AA. Indirabai W/o Anna Havle, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶319

20/AB. Navnath S/o Anna Havle, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶320

20/AC. Anand S/o Anna Havle, Aged 30 years, Occ.: Household, Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶321

20/AD. Manik S/o Anna Havle, Aged 30 years, Occ.: Household, Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶322

20/AE. Rambhau S/o Anna Havle, Aged 25 years, Occu.:Occ.: Household,

¶323

¶324

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶325

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶326

Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶327

Vithoba S/o Kundlik Havle, Aged: 74 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶328

Bhika S/o Nivratti Havle, Aged: 70 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶329

Shamrao S/o Sakharam Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶330

23/A.Govind S/o Shamrao Havle, Aged 47 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pathra, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶331

Kishan S/o Gena Havle, deceased through his L.Rs.

¶332

24/A.Padminibai W/o Kishan Havle, Age 50 years, Occ.: Household, R/o: Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶333

Babu S/o Yada Bagal, Deceased through His L.Rs.

¶334

25/A.Raibhan S/o Baby Bagal, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Agri., R/a Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶335

Namdeo S/o Pandhari Havle, Deceased through His L.Rs.

¶336

26/A.Phulabai W/o Namdeo Havle, Aged: 55 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o -Pathra-Murshdpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶337

26/B.Sajarbai W/o Bajirao Survase, Aged 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Kumbhari, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶338

¶339

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶340

Babu S/o Dhondiba Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶341

27/A).Ashru S/o Babu Havle, Aged 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshdapur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶342

27/B.Dattu S/o Babu Havle, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. Dist. Beed.

¶343

27/C.Lahu S/o Babu Havle, Aged 32 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. Dist. Beed.

¶344

28/D.Rohidas S/o Babu Havle, Aged 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. Dist. Beed.

¶345

28/E.Smt. Bhagubai W/o Baburao Havle, Aged 70 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq/ & Dist. Beed. ... APPLICANTS [ORIG.PETITIONERSRESPONDENTS].

¶346

VERSUS

¶347

Pandurang S/o Bhagwant Naik, Deceased.

¶348

Trivikram S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Deceased.

¶349

Bhanudas S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Aged 55 years, Occu.: Service, R/o: Rajura (Manikgad), Tq. & Dist. Chandrapur.

¶350

Aniruddha S/o Mohan Naik Thigale,

¶351

¶352

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶353

Aged 50 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Datta Galli, Beed Dist. Beed.

¶354

Upendra S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Aged; 40 years, Occu.: Service, R/o: Datta Galli, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶355

Surendra S/o Kamlakar Naik Thigale, Aged: 50 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o: Thigale Galli, Beed. Dist. Beed.

¶356

Ravindra S/o Kamlakar Naik Thigale, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o Thigale Galli, Beed, Dist. Beed. 8. Satyendra S/o Kamlakar Naik Thigale, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o: Thigale Galli, Beed, Dist. Beed. ... NON-APPLICANT

¶357

 [ORIG. RESPONDENTS-REVISION PETITIONER]

¶358

AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.: 998 OF 2006
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶359

1. Dhondiram S/o Narayan Havle, Deceased:

¶360

Ashru S/o Sona Ghodke, Aged 69 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PathraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶361

Dada S/o Namdeo Havle, Aged 67 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PAthraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶362

Haribhau S/o Balbhim Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶363

¶364

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶365

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶366

Nagurao S/o Baburao Havle, Aged 68 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PothraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶367

Mahadu S/o Aba Havle, Aged 68 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PothraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶368

Pandurang S/o Narhari Havle, Deceased

¶369

Babasaheb S/o Pandhari Havle, Aged 70 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PothraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶370

Dada S/o Namdeo Jadhav, dead through his L.Rs. 9/A. Kalyan S/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 45 years, Occ.:Agri.,R/o: PothraMurshadpur,Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶371

9/B.Ramchandra S/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 40 years, Occ.:Agri.,R/o: PothraMurshadpur,Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶372

9/C.Abhimanyu S/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 35 years. Occ.:Agri.,R/o: PothraMurshadpur,Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶373

9/D.Smt. Tahnubai W/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 65 years. Occu.: Household, R/o PathraMurshdapur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶374

Sudam S/o Sitaram Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶375

10/A.Radhabai W/o Gorakh Naikwade,

¶376

¶377

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶378

Aged 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Chausala, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶379

10/B.Asrabai W/o Baba Khakare, Aged 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sawargaon, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶380

10/C.Kesarbai W/o Atmaram Khakre, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sawargaon, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶381

10/D.Moharbai W/o Maroti Khakre, Aged 25 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sawargaon, T1. & Dist. Beed.

¶382

Babu S/o Namdeo Havle, deceased his L.Rs.

¶383

11/A.Govind S/o Babu Havle, Aged 30 years, Occu. Agri., R/o Pathra, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶384

Kashinath S/o Gena Havle, Deceased through L.Rs.

¶385

12/A. Rambhau S/o Kashinath Havle, Age 60 yrs., Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶386

12/B. Janabai W/o Prabhu Naikwade, Age 58 yrs., Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶387

12/C. Pralhad S/o Kashinath Havle, Age 56 yrs., Occu. Household. R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶388

12/D. Satyabhama W/o Raosaheb Pokle, Age 52 yrs., Occu. Household., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶389

¶390

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶391

12/E. Trimbak S/o. Kashinath Havle, Age 50 yrs., Occu. Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶392

12/F. Sheshrao S/o Kashinath Havle, Age 60 yrs., Occ. Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶393

Bhagwan S/oGanpati Havle, Aged 75 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶394

Sukhdeo S/o Ranuji Havle, Deceased, through His. L.Rs.

¶395

14/A.Abasaheb S/o Sukhdeo Havle, Aged 50 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶396

14/B.Babu S/o Sukhadeo Havle, Aged 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶397

14/C.Asrabai W/o Vithal Jagtap, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Palsingan, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶398

Deorao S/o Tatyaba Hiwale, Aged: 70 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Marshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶399

Dharma S/o Santouba Havle, Deceased

¶400

Dharma S/o Gena Pathade, Aged 70 years, Occu.: Agri;, R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶401

Ashru S/o Ranga Hawale,

¶402

¶403

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶404

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶405

Aged 70 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶406

Ahsru S/o Nivratti Hawavel, Aged: 62 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶407

Ganpati Bala Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶408

20/A) Anna S/o Ganpati Halve, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶409

20/AA. Indirabai W/o Anna Havle, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶410

20/AB. Navnath S/o Anna Havle, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶411

20/AC. Anand S/o Anna Havle, Aged 30 years, Occ.: Household, Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶412

20/AD. Manik S/o Anna Havle, Aged 30 years, Occ.: Household, Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶413

20/AE. Rambhau S/o Anna Havle, Aged 25 years, Occu.:Occ.: Household, Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶414

Vithoba S/o Kundlik Havle, Aged: 74 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶415

Bhika S/o Nivratti Havle, Aged: 70 years, Occu.:

¶416

¶417

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶418

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶419

Agri., R/o Pathra, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶420

Shamrao S/o Sakharam Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶421

23/A.Govind S/o Shamrao Havle, Aged 47 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pathra, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶422

Kishan S/o Gena Havle, deceased through his L.Rs.

¶423

24/A.Padminibai W/o Kishan Havle, Age 50 years, Occ.: Household, R/o: Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶424

Babu S/o Yada Bagal, Deceased through His L.Rs.

¶425

25/A.Raibhan S/o Baby Bagal, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Agri., R/a Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶426

Namdeo S/o Pandhari Havle, Deceased through His L.Rs.

¶427

26/A.Phulabai W/o Namdeo Havle, Aged: 55 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o -Pathra-Murshdpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶428

26/B.Sajarbai W/o Bajirao Survase, Aged 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Kumbhari, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶429

Babu S/o Dhondiba Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶430

27/A).Ashru S/o Babu Havle, Aged 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshdapur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶431

¶432

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶433

27/B.Dattu S/o Babu Havle, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. Dist. Beed.

¶434

27/C.Lahu S/o Babu Havle, Aged 32 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. Dist. Beed.

¶435

28/D.Rohidas S/o Babu Havle, Aged 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. Dist. Beed.

¶436

28/E.Smt. Bhagubai W/o Baburao Havle, Aged 70 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq/ & Dist. Beed. ... APPLICANTS [ORIG.PETITIONERSRESPONDENTS].

¶437

VERSUS

¶438

Pandurang S/o Bhagwant Naik, Deceased.

¶439

Trivikram S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Deceased.

¶440

Bhanudas S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Aged 55 years, Occu.: Service, R/o: Rajura (Manikgad), Tq. & Dist. Chandrapur.

¶441

Aniruddha S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Aged 50 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Datta Galli, Beed Dist. Beed.

¶442

Upendra S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Aged; 40 years, Occu.: Service, R/o: Datta Galli, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶443

Surendra S/o Kamlakar Naik Thigale,

¶444

¶445

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶446

Aged: 50 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o: Thigale Galli, Beed. Dist. Beed.

¶447

Ravindra S/o Kamlakar Naik Thigale, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o Thigale Galli, Beed, Dist. Beed.

¶448

Satyendra S/o Kamlakar Naik Thigale, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o: Thigale Galli, Beed, Dist. Beed. ... NON-APPLICANT [ORIG. RESPONDENTS/ REVISION PETITIONER]

¶449

WITH

¶450

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.: 999 OF 2006
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶451

1. Dhondiram S/o Narayan Havle, Deceased:

¶452

Ashru S/o Sona Ghodke, Aged 69 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PathraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶453

Dada S/o Namdeo Havle, Aged 67 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PathraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶454

Haribhau S/o Balbhim Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶455

Nagurao S/o Baburao Havle, Aged 68 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PathraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶456

Mahadu S/o Aba Havle,

¶457

¶458

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶459

Aged 68 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PathraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶460

Pandurang S/o Narhari Havle, Deceased

¶461

Babasaheb S/o Pandhari Havle, Aged 70 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PathraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶462

Dada S/o Namdeo Jadhav, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶463

9/A. Kalyan S/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 45 years, Occ.:Agri.,R/o: PathraMurshadpur,Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶464

9/B.Ramchandra S/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 40 years, Occ.:Agri.,R/o: PathraMurshadpur,Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶465

9/C.Abhimanyu S/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 35 years. Occ.:Agri.,R/o: PathraMurshadpur,Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶466

9/D.Smt. Tahnubai W/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 65 years. Occu.: Household, R/o PathraMurshdapur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶467

Sudam S/o Sitaram Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶468

10/A.Radhabai W/o Gorakh Naikwade, Aged 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Chausala, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶469

10/B.Asrabai W/o Baba Khakare,

¶470

¶471

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶472

WITH

¶473

CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶474

Aged 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sawargaon, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶475

10/C.Kesarbai W/o Atmaram Khakre, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sawargaon, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶476

10/D.Moharbai W/o Maroti Khakre, Aged 25 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sawargaon, T1. & Dist. Beed.

¶477

Babu S/o Namdeo Havle, deceased his L.Rs.

¶478

11/A.Govind S/o Babu Havle, Aged 30 years, Occu. Agri., R/o Pathra, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶479

Kashinath S/o Gena Havle, Deceased.

¶480

Bhagwan S/oGanpati Havle, Aged 75 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶481

Sukhdeo S/o Ranuji Havle, Deceased, through His. L.Rs.

¶482

14/A.Abasaheb S/o Sukhdeo Havle, Aged 50 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶483

14/B.Babu S/o Sukhadeo Havle, Aged 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶484

14/C.Asrabai W/o Vithal Jagtap, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Palsingan, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶485

¶486

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶487

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶488

Deorao S/o Tatyaba Hiwale, Aged: 70 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Marshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶489

Dharma S/o Santouba Havle, Deceased

¶490

16/A. Tulsiram S/o Dharma Havle & Kadam, Age: 60 yrs., Occu.: Household, R/o. Mandavkhel, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶491

16/B. Babasaheb S/o Dharma Havle & Kadam, Age 57 yrs., Occdu. Agri., R/o Mandavkhel, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶492

16/C. Jayjayram S/o Dhgarma Havle & Kadam, Age 54 yrs., Occu.: Agri., R/o Mandavkhel, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶493

16/D. Sow. Anjanabai W/o Shankarrao Mandve, Age 49 yrs., Occ. Household, R/o. Mandavkhel, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶494

16/E. Sow. Bhivrabai W/o Ashruba Pokale, Age 45 yrs., Occ. Household, R/o Mandavkhel, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶495

Dharma S/o Gena Pathade, Aged 70 years, Occu.: Agri;, R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶496

Ashru S/o Ranga Hawale, Aged 70 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶497

Ashru S/o Nivratti Hawavel, Aged: 62 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶498

Ganpati Bala Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶499

20/A) Anna S/o Ganpati Halve, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶500

¶501

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶502

20/AA. Indirabai W/o Anna Havle, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶503

20/AB. Navnath S/o Anna Havle, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶504

20/AC. Anand S/o Anna Havle, Aged 30 years, Occ.: Household, Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶505

20/AD. Manik S/o Anna Havle, Aged 30 years, Occ.: Household, Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶506

20/AE. Rambhau S/o Anna Havle, Aged 25 years, Occu.:Occ.: Household, Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶507

Vithoba S/o Kundlik Havle, Aged: 74 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶508

Bhika S/o Nivratti Havle, Aged: 70 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶509

Shamrao S/o Sakharam Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶510

23/A.Govind S/o Shamrao Havle, Aged 47 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pathra, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶511

Kishan S/o Gena Havle, deceased through his L.Rs.

¶512

24/A.Padminibai W/o Kishan Havle,

¶513

¶514

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶515

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶516

Age 50 years, Occ.: Household, R/o: Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶517

Babu S/o Yada Bagal, Deceased through His L.Rs.

¶518

25/A.Raibhan S/o Baby Bagal, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Agri., R/a Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶519

Namdeo S/o Pandhari Havle, Deceased through His L.Rs.

¶520

26/A.Phulabai W/o Namdeo Havle, Aged: 55 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o -Pathra-Murshdpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶521

26/B.Sajarbai W/o Bajirao Survase, Aged 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Kumbhari, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶522

Babu S/o Dhondiba Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶523

27/A).Ashru S/o Babu Havle, Aged 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshdapur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶524

27/B.Dattu S/o Babu Havle, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. Dist. Beed.

¶525

27/C.Lahu S/o Babu Havle, Aged 32 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. Dist. Beed.

¶526

28/D.Rohidas S/o Babu Havle, Aged 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur,

¶527

¶528

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶529

Tq. Dist. Beed.

¶530

28/E.Smt. Bhagubai W/o Baburao Havle, Aged 70 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq/ & Dist. Beed. ... APPLICANTS [ORIG.PETITIONERSRESPONDENTS].

¶531

VERSUS

¶532

Pandurang S/o Bhagwant Naik, Deceased.

¶533

Trivikram S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Deceased.

¶534

Bhanudas S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Aged 55 years, Occu.: Service, R/o: Rajura (Manikgad), Tq. & Dist. Chandrapur.

¶535

Aniruddha S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Aged 50 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Datta Galli, Beed Dist. Beed.

¶536

Upendra S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Aged; 40 years, Occu.: Service, R/o: Datta Galli, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶537

Surendra S/o Kamlakar Naik Thigale, Aged: 50 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o: Thigale Galli, Beed. Dist. Beed.

¶538

Ravindra S/o Kamlakar Naik Thigale, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o Thigale Galli, Beed, Dist. Beed.

¶539

Satyendra S/o Kamlakar Naik Thigale, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o: Thigale Galli, Beed, Dist. Beed. ... NON-APPLICANT

¶540

[ORIG. RESPONDENTS-REVISION PETITIONER]

¶541

¶542

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶543

AND

¶544

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.: 1000 OF 2006 IN

¶545

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶546

1. Dhondiram S/o Narayan Havle, Deceased:

¶547

Ashru S/o Sona Ghodke, Aged 69 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PathraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶548

Dada S/o Namdeo Havle, Aged 67 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PathraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶549

Haribhau S/o Balbhim Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶550

Nagurao S/o Baburao Havle, Aged 68 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PathraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶551

Mahadu S/o Aba Havle, Aged 68 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PathraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶552

Pandurang S/o Narhari Havle, Deceased

¶553

Babasaheb S/o Pandhari Havle, Aged 70 years, Occu. Agri., R/o PathraMurshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶554

Dada S/o Namdeo Jadhav,

¶555

¶556

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶557

WITH

¶558

CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶559

Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶560

9/A. Kalyan S/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 45 years, Occ.:Agri.,R/o: PathraMurshadpur,Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶561

9/B.Ramchandra S/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 40 years, Occ.:Agri.,R/o: PathraMurshadpur,Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶562

9/C.Abhimanyu S/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 35 years. Occ.:Agri.,R/o: PathraMurshadpur,Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶563

9/D.Smt. Tahnubai W/o Dada Jadhav, Aged 65 years. Occu.: Household, R/o PathraMurshdapur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶564

Sudam S/o Sitaram Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶565

10/A.Radhabai W/o Gorakh Naikwade, Aged 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Chausala, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶566

10/B.Asrabai W/o Baba Khakare, Aged 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sawargaon, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶567

10/C.Kesarbai W/o Atmaram Khakre, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sawargaon, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶568

10/D.Moharbai W/o Maroti Khakre, Aged 25 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sawargaon, T1. & Dist. Beed.

¶569

Babu S/o Namdeo Havle, deceased his L.Rs.

¶570

¶571

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶572

11/A.Govind S/o Babu Havle, Aged 30 years, Occu. Agri., R/o Pathra, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶573

Kashinath S/o Gena Havle, Deceased.

¶574

Bhagwan S/oGanpati Havle, Aged 75 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶575

Sukhdeo S/o Ranuji Havle, Deceased, through His. L.Rs.

¶576

14/A.Abasaheb S/o Sukhdeo Havle, Aged 50 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶577

14/B.Babu S/o Sukhadeo Havle, Aged 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶578

14/C.Asrabai W/o Vithal Jagtap, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Palsingan, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶579

Deorao S/o Tatyaba Hiwale, Aged: 70 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Marshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶580

Dharma S/o Santouba Havle, Deceased

¶581

Dharma S/o Gena Pathade, Age 70 yrs., Occ. Agri., R/o. Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶582

Ashru S/o Ranga Hawale, Aged 70 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶583

¶584

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶585

Ashru S/o Nivratti Hawavel, Aged: 62 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶586

Ganpati Bala Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶587

20/A) Anna S/o Ganpati Halve, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶588

20/AA. Indirabai W/o Anna Havle, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶589

20/AB. Navnath S/o Anna Havle, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶590

20/AC. Anand S/o Anna Havle, Aged 30 years, Occ.: Household, Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶591

20/AD. Manik S/o Anna Havle, Aged 30 years, Occ.: Household, Agri., R/o Pothra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶592

20/AE. Rambhau S/o Anna Havle, Aged 25 years, Occu.:Occ.: Household, Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶593

Vithoba S/o Kundlik Havle, Aged: 74 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶594

Bhika S/o Nivratti Havle, Aged: 70 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶595

¶596

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶597

WITH

¶598

CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶599

Shamrao S/o Sakharam Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶600

23/A.Govind S/o Shamrao Havle, Aged 47 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pathra, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

¶601

Kishan S/o Gena Havle, deceased through his L.Rs.

¶602

24/A.Padminibai W/o Kishan Havle, Age 50 years, Occ.: Household, R/o: Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶603

Babu S/o Yada Bagal, Deceased through His L.Rs.

¶604

25/A.Raibhan S/o Baby Bagal, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Agri., R/a Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶605

Namdeo S/o Pandhari Havle, Deceased through His L.Rs.

¶606

26/A.Phulabai W/o Namdeo Havle, Aged: 55 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o -Pathra-Murshdpur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶607

26/B.Sajarbai W/o Bajirao Survase, Aged 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Kumbhari, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶608

Babu S/o Dhondiba Havle, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶609

27/A).Ashru S/o Babu Havle, Aged 40 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshdapur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶610

27/B.Dattu S/o Babu Havle, Aged 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur,

¶611

¶612

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶613

Tq. Dist. Beed.

¶614

27/C.Lahu S/o Babu Havle, Aged 32 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. Dist. Beed.

¶615

28/D.Rohidas S/o Babu Havle, Aged 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq. Dist. Beed.

¶616

28/E.Smt. Bhagubai W/o Baburao Havle, Aged 70 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Pathra-Murshadpur, Tq/ & Dist. Beed. ... APPLICANTS [ORIG.PETITIONERSRESPONDENTS].

¶617

VERSUS

¶618

Pandurang S/o Bhagwant Naik, Deceased.

¶619

1/A. Durgadas S/o Pandurang Thigale, Age 66 yrs., Occu. Agri., R/o Yallam, Tq. Beed, Dist. Beed.

¶620

1/B. Kalidas S/o Pandurang Thigale, Age: 62 yrs., Occu.: Advocate, R/o. Subash Road, Beed.

¶621

1/C. Manoramabai W/o Gangadhar Naik, Age: 40 yrs., Occu.: Household, R/o Yeshwant Nagar, nanded, Dist. Nanded.

¶622

1/D. Hemlata W/o Madhukar Kadtub, Age: 35 yrs., Occ.: Household, R/o Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.

¶623

Trivikram S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Deceased.

¶624

¶625

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶626

Bhanudas S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Aged 55 years, Occu.: Service, R/o: Rajura (Manikgad), Tq. & Dist. Chandrapur.

¶627

Aniruddha S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Aged 50 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Datta Galli, Beed Dist. Beed.

¶628

Upendra S/o Mohan Naik Thigale, Aged; 40 years, Occu.: Service, R/o: Datta Galli, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶629

Surendra S/o Kamlakar Naik Thigale, Aged: 50 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o: Thigale Galli, Beed. Dist. Beed.

¶630

Ravindra S/o Kamlakar Naik Thigale, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o Thigale Galli, Beed, Dist. Beed.

¶631

Satyendra S/o Kamlakar Naik Thigale, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o: Thigale Galli, Beed, Dist. Beed. ... NON-APPLICANT

¶632

 [ORIG. RESPONDENTS-REVISION PETITIONER]

¶633

***

¶634

Mr. S. S. Choudhari, Advocate for the
Petitioners/ Applicants.

¶635

Mr. P.M.Shah, Senior Advocate h/f Mr. G. K.
Naik Thigale, Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 3,
4, 6, 7 and 8.

¶636

Mr. M. V. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent 4.
Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent
No.7.

¶637

***

¶638

CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATED:- 17th/18th JANUARY, 2011.

¶639

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶640

1.This writ petition is filed by 27 persons

¶641

against 8 persons as Respondents, under

¶642

¶643

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶644

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India. The challenge in the petition is to
order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in
Revision Application No.10/B/89-B and No.88-
D-89-B. The said proceeding before
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal were filed by 8
respondents before this court challenging
order under section 38-E of Hyderabad Tenancy
& Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter
referred to as Hyderabad Act). The revision
filed by them has been allowed and impugned
order of Deputy Collector of Land Reforms in
File No.86/TNC/A-18 has been set aside. The
effect is, earlier order passed by Additional
Tahsildar, Sub Division, Beed on 3rd
September, 1986 in favour of present
respondents is, therefore, restored by
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.

¶645

2.The facts can be very briefly stated, at
this stage. Land Survey No.1/1 admeasuring 25
Acres 25 Gunthas and Survey No.2/2,
admeasuring 25 Acres 26 Gunthas of village
Pothra form the subject matter of this
litigation. The present petitioners moved

¶646

¶647

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶648

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶649

Additional Tahsildar at Beed in above
mentioned case by filing application under
Section 38-E of Hyderabad Act and sought
ownership certificate in their favour and
determination of its market price. The 27
persons who moved as tenants did not point out
any separate portion out of above mentioned
lands to establish their right of tenancy in
relation thereto and also did not point out
any separate contract of tenancy. The present
respondents disputed their entitlement and in
defence pointed out that they were all in
possession of the land in pursuance of an
agreement for sale dated 28th March, 1954.
Thus, in defence, they again pointed only one
agreement with all 27 persons covering entire
land. Tahsildar applied his mind and rejected
the application filed by present petitioners.
Deputy Collector, in appeal, vide judgment No.
13 of 1988, quashed that order and directed
Additional Tahsildar (Tribunal) to fix the
reasonable purchase price in accordance with
law. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision
filed by present 8 Respondents in paragraph 9

¶650

¶651

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶652

framed issues and found that these 27 persons
have not been declared as owners of disputed
land under section 38-E of the Hyderabad Act.
It found that a direction to fix its purchase
price, therefore, could not have been issued
by Deputy Collector. It further held that
Petitioners are not entitled to claim
ownership certificate in relation to these
lands. It is this judgment of Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal which has been questioned
before this Court.

¶653

3.Petitioner No.1 Dhondiram has expired on
20th of May, 1994 and petitioners have moved
civil application No.995 of 2006 for
condonation of delay and civil application St.
No.1690 of 2006 for bringing his legal heirs
on record. The applications have been filed
on 20th of January, 2006 and thus there is
delay of 11 years and 155 days. Petitioner
No.4 Haribhau has expired on 10th April, 2004
and civil application No.996 of 2006 is moved
for condonation of delay and civil application
st. No.1696 of 2006 is moved for bringing his
legal heirs on record. These civil

¶654

¶655

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶656

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶657

applications are again filed on 20th of
January, 2006 only, with delay of one year 210
days. Petitioner No.7 Pandurang expired on
16th January, 1992 and civil application No.
997 of 2006 has been filed for condoning delay
in bringing his legal heirs on record while
civil application st. No.1688 of 2006 is for
permission to bring those heirs on record.
These applications are also filed on 20th
January, 2006 with delay of 13 years 288 days.
Petitioner No.12 Kashinath died on 23rd

¶658

October, 1998. Civil application NO.998 of
2006 is for condoning delay and civil
application st. No. 1692 of 2006 is for
permission to bring his legal heirs on record.
These applications are filed on same day with
delay of 8 years 373 days. Petitioner No.16
Dharma expired on 3rd August, 1997 and civil
application No999 of 2006 is filed for
condoning delay while civil application st.
No.1698 of 2006 is filed for permission to
bring his legal heirs on record. Both these
applications are filed on 20th January, 2006
only, with delay of 8 years and 69 days.

¶659

¶660

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶661

4.Respondent No.1 Pandurang has expired on
20th February, 2005 and civil application NO.
10000 of 2006 has been filed for condonation
of delay of 268 days. Civil application St.
No.1694 of 2006 has been filed on 20th
January, 2006 seeking leave to bring his legal
heirs on record. It is not in dispute that
Respondent No.2 Trivikram expired on 25th
June, 1991 and there is no application either
for condonation of delay or for bringing his
legal heirs on record. Similarly, Respondent
No.3 Bhanudas expired in February, 1995 and
there are no applications moved by petitioners
for bringing his legal heirs on record.
Registrar of this Court has on 6th July, 1992
dismissed petition as against Respondent No.5.

¶662

5.This Court has on 28th November, 2005
passed orders and dismissed writ petition as
against Respondent No.1. The Deputy Registrar
of this Court has on 6th July, 1992, vide
order,dismissedproceedingsagainst
Respondent No.2. Vide same order, Deputy
Registrar has also dismissed the proceedings
against Respondent No.5 for default in

¶663

¶664

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶665

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶666

effecting service upon him. In its order
dated 10th March, 2010 this Court has taken
note of event of death of Respondent No.3.

¶667

6.In this background, when the matter was
first taken up, Shri Shah, learned senior
Advocate with Advocate Mr. G. K. Naik Thigale
contended that the relief given by M.R.T. is
joint and un-separable. Hence, as it has
attained finality qua some of the Respondents,
if this Court takes up the matter on merits

¶668

and allows the writ petition inconsistent
order will come into effect. He, therefore,
contended that because of these deaths and
consequential abatement, entire challenge has
abated and writ petition, therefore, cannot be
considered on merits. Senior Advocate Shri
Shah pointed out that in appeal No.190 of 1964
the Respondents had withdrawn the suit itself
on technical grounds and the Respondents still
have a right to file civil suit against the
petitioners for possession of land. In view
of this objection raised by senior Advocate

¶669

Mr. Shah, I have heard the parties
accordingly.

¶670

¶671

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶672

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶673

7.Advocate Shri Choudhari for petitioners
has invited attention to the merits of
controversy. In short, according to him,
there is already a valid certificate issued in
favour of petitioners declaring them to be
tenants of suit lands and the alleged
agreement for sale, therefore, has got no
bearing on the dispute. He has further
pointed out that the Respondents had filed
Special Civil Suit No.36 of 1962 for recovery
of possession but then that suit was dismissed

¶674

on 30th October, 1963 and later in Regular
Civil Appeal No.190 of 1964 filed by them,
challenging that dismissal, suit has been
withdrawn by the Respondents.

¶675

8.In this situation, he has invited

¶676

attention to the judgment of Maharashtra

¶677

Revenue Tribunal to urge that the certificate

¶678

of declaration of status of petitioners has

¶679

been erroneously read by M.R.T. He points out

¶680

that right from year 1950-51 till date entire

¶681

land is admittedly in possession of
petitioners. According to him, in this
situation, when majority of the petitioners

¶682

¶683

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶684

and respondents are before this Court, the

¶685

cause cannot and has not abated. He further
points out that appropriate remedial steps
have been already initiated and hence the

¶686

legal heirs must be allowed to be brought on
record. He has pointed out that as matter is

¶687

very old, the legal heirs were not aware of
the pendency thereof. They received a letter
written by their counsel and then contacted
him and during that visit the death of
respective petitioner or respondent was
communicated to the counsel. Counsel then
required necessary papers and hence death
certificates, Vakalanama from legal heirs etc.
were secured. These formalities were

¶688

completed on 23rd December, 2005 and,
thereafter, all above mentioned civil
applications have been filed on 20th January,
2006. Learned counsel has also urged that as
five to six such applications were required to

¶689

be filed simultaneously there are some errors

¶690

but then those errors are not fatal and in any
case relevant while considering the prayer for
condonation of delay. He, therefore, states

¶691

¶692

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶693

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶694

that in such circumstances, looking to the

¶695

pendency of cause since long before this
Court, the Court must adopt a liberal approach
and the delay which has taken place should be
condoned and legal heirs should be allowed to

¶696

be brought on record.

¶697

pedantic approach in the matter, he has relied
upon the judgment of this Court in the case of

¶698

"Keshavo S/o Kawadu Maral and another V/s
State of Maharashtra and others" reported at

¶699

2005 (1) Mh.L.J. 1059. Need for liberal
approach is emphasised by placing reliance
upon judgment of Honourable Apex Court in the
case of "Mithailal Dalasanagar Singh and
others V/s Annabai Devram Kini and others"
reported at2003 (4) Mh.L.J. 721. The

¶700

precedents in the case of "Baba Hari Mohite
and others V/s Dinkar Ramchandra Sapkal and

¶701

others" reported in 2007 (3) Bom. C. R. page
835, in the case of "Nagina Singh and others
V/s Naga Singh and others" reported in A.I.R.

¶702

2002 S.C. page 3028 are cited to urge that the
present controversy has not abated. In this

¶703

¶704

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶705

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶706

situation, the judgment of Honourable Apex
Court in the matter of "Nagina Sigh V/s Naga
Singh" reported at 2002 LawSuit (SC) page 748
is also relied upon to urge that as most of
the contesting parties are on record,
applications of such nature for setting aside
abatement should not be rejected and delay
should be condoned.

¶707

10.Advocate Shri Shah, after pointing out
the facts, as narrated above briefly, has
heavily relied upon the order of this Court
dated 10th October, 2005 to show that learned
counsel appearing for petitioners on that day
had necessary instructions from petitioners
and, therefore only he could communicate the
fact of death of Respondent No.1 to the Court.
He has urged that on that day fact of deaths
of petitioners or other respondents has not
been communicated to this Court and this
order, therefore, discredits the contentions
in civil applications for condonation of
delay. He has pointed out that all

¶708

applications for condonation of delay are
identical. The contents in paragraph No.2 are

¶709

¶710

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶711

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶712

stated to be only relevant for consideration

¶713

of the aspect of condonation of delay.
Learned senior Advocate has urged that the
respective legal heir in each application is
stated to have received letter sent by counsel
for petitioner about listing of present writ
petition for final hearing and then that legal
heir contacting the Advocate and after
discussion informing death of the original
petitioner to learned counsel. It is urged
that the relevant dates which are very vital,

¶714

like date on which letter was sent, the
meeting by the legal heir or then the date of
meeting between the said legal heir and
learned counsel are not disclosed. Learned
senior Advocate points out that as delay is

¶715

huge, burden was upon legal heirs to explain
the same satisfactorily and absence of these

¶716

details, therefore, is fatal to the
application. He further points out that after
alleged meeting between learned counsel for
petitioners and respective legal heirs, the
formalities are stated to have been completed
on 23rd December, 2005. This, according to

¶717

¶718

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶719

learned senior Advocate, 23rd December, 2005
is the only date disclosed on affidavit in all
these applications. n The story in these
applications, therefore, militates with what
is disclosed to this Court on 10th October,
2005.

¶720

11.In this background, he has invited
attention to subsequent order passed by this
Court on 28th November, 2005. He points out
that on that day this Court dismissed writ
petition as against Respondent No.1 and this

¶721

is prior to 23rd December, 2005. However,
this order also does not find mention and
consideration in the applications as moved.
For same purpose, orders passed on 6th July,

¶722

1992 by Deputy Registrar, dismissing the writ
petition against Respondent No.2 and 5 are
also being relied upon.

¶723

12.The learned senior Advocate has then

¶724

invited attention to the fact that very same
story has been adopted while attempting the

¶725

explain delay in bringing legal heirs of
respondent No.1, on record. According to him,
there is no question of counsel for the

¶726

¶727

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶728

petitioner sending any letter to the
respective respondent or then legal heir of
said respondent contacting learned counsel.
In short, learned senior Advocate has
contended that a story has been concocted and
this Court is being persuaded to condone the
hugedelaywithoutgivingnecessary

¶729

particulars.

¶730

18th JANUARY, 2011.

¶731

13.He has relied upon the judgments of this
Court in the case of "Parvez Rustom Nekoo V/s
Rustom Ardeshir Nekoo" reported in 2003 (2)
Mh.L.J. 236, the judgment of Honourable
Supreme Court in the matter of "Katari
Suryanarayana and others V/s Koppiseth Subba
Rao and others" reported in (2009) 11 S.C.C.
183, in the case of "Pundlik Jalam Patil
(Dead) By LRs. V/s Executive Engineer, Jalgaon
Medium Project and another" reported in (2008)
17 SCC 448, in the case of "Oriental Aroma

¶732

Chemical Industries Limited V/s Gujarat
IndustrialDevelopmentCorporationand

¶733

¶734

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶735

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶736

another" reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459, and
judgment of this Court in the case of "Govind
Laxman Jadhav V/s Namdeo Balu Jadhav" reported
in 2005 (1) Bom. C. R. 278 to show how the

¶737

approach of the court has to be while
considering prayer for condoning a delay of
short duration, a huge delay. He has also
relied upon these judgments to point out that
when the impugned orders are joint and
inseparable the entire cause abates.

¶738

14.In the case of "Keshao S/o kawadu Maral

¶739

and another V/s State of Maharashtra and

¶740

others" (supra) Division Bench of this Court
has held that provisions of Order 22 Rule 1 of
C.P.C. are not penal in nature and being
procedural, substantive rights of parties
cannot be defeated by adopting pedantic
approach. The observations are made in
Letters Patent Appeal filed against the orders
of learned Single Judge holding that the
proceedings had abated as there was delay of
about 6 years in taking out application for
bringing on record the legal heirs of one of

¶741

the Respondents. The challenge was to the

¶742

¶743

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶744

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶745

order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.

¶746

The Division Bench has held that delay in
taking out application had to be computed from
date of knowledge of death of party and it was
a case of the applicant (appellant before it)
that he had no such knowledge before taking
out application. In facts before me, fact of
death was always known to petitioners as legal
heirs. In the case of "Mithailal Dalsanagar

¶747

Singh and others V/s Annabai Devram Kini and

¶748

others" (supra) Honourable Apex Court has
considered provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 (3)
C.P.Code to hold that when there is a prayer
for bringing legal representatives on record
without any express prayer for setting aside

¶749

abatement, the earlier prayer needs to be
construed as a prayer for setting aside
abatement also. The Honourable Court has said
that approach of the Court in such matters has
to be liberal. In the case of "Katarai
Suryanarayana and others V/s Koppiseth Subba
Rao and others" (supra) the Honourable Apex

¶750

Court has in para 15 noted that the reliance
before it was on provisions of Order 22 Rule

¶751

¶752

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶753

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶754

10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure inserted

¶755

by 1976 Amendment and noted that said
provision did not provide for consequences and
it did not exonerate plaintiff or appellant of
his duty to file application for condonation
of delay in bringing on record the heirs and
legal representatives within the period
prescribed. In para 16, Honourable Apex Court
has relied upon its observations in earlier
judgment in the case of "Union of India V/s
Ram Charan" reported in AIR 1964 SC page 215

¶756

to note that the liberal approach to be
adopted does not mean that Court should
readily accept whatever the appellant alleges
to explain away his default. The Court has to
scrutinise the facts and would be fully
justified in considering the merits of the
evidence led to establish that cause. In very
same paragraph, it has been observed that
person approaching belatedly has to state
reasons for his not knowing of the death
within reasonable time and to establish those
reasons to the satisfaction of the Court.
Honourable Apex Court has noticed that this is

¶757

¶758

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶759

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶760

more so when correctness of reasons is

¶761

assailed by legal representatives of deceased

¶762

who have secured a valuable right on the
abatement of the suit. Observations in
paragraph 23 onwards reveal that after
noticing the fact that parties were

¶763

neighbours, the Honourable Apex Court finds it
difficult to concede that the petitioners were
not aware of the dates of death and it also
did not accept the story that they did not
contact their Advocate from 1999 till

¶764

December, 2006. It has been held that
ignorance of legal consequences without

¶765

something more is not sufficient to condone a

¶766

huge delay. The Appellants before the Apex

¶767

Court are found to be literate. Here also
contact of Petitioners with their counsel

¶768

prior to 10th October, 2010 is established and
all deaths/ events are much prior to that. In

¶769

the case of "Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) By

¶770

LRS. V/s Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium

¶771

Project and another" (supra) Honourable Court

¶772

has, in para 12, found that incorrect
statement made in an application for

¶773

¶774

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶775

condonation of delay itself is sufficient to
reject that application without further
inquiry. A party taking false stand to get

¶776

rid of bar of limitation should not be
encouraged to get any premium on falsehood on
its part by condoning delay. In para 18,
Honourable Apex Court has noted that delay
before it was inordinate i.e. 1724 days. In
para 26 to 31, the approach to be adopted in
such matters by Courts of law has been
highlighted. The Honourable Apex Court has

¶777

noted in paragraph 28 that the purpose of law
of limitation is to put an end to litigation
and to ensure private justice suppressing
fraud and perjury, quickening diligence and
preventing oppression. In para 30 Honourable
Apex Court has observed that such rights
cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning
inordinate delay without there being any
proper explanation of such delay on the ground
of involvement of public revenue. Honourable

¶778

Apex Court has noted that it serves no public
interest. The discretion exercised by High
Court in condoning delay of 1724 days was,

¶779

¶780

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶781

therefore, found to be exercised erroneously.
In the case of "Oriental Aroma Chemical
Industries Limited V/s Gujarat Industrial
Development Corporation and another" (supra)
the approach to be adopted is laid down in
paragraph 14 to 17. Observations in paragraph
15 show that the Honourable Apex Court has
advocated adoption of liberation approach in
condoning delay of short duration and
stricture approach when the delay is
inordinate. The Honourable Apex Court was
considering question of condonation of delay
of more than four years in filing appeal and
found delay was inordinate.

¶782

15.In present facts respective dates of

¶783

death of Petitioner Nos.1, 4, 7, 12 and 16 are
already mentioned by me above with the period
of delay in moving applications. The delay is
of one year and 210 days in case of Petitioner
no.4, while it is more than eight years in
remaining cases. All applications are filed
on one day i.e. on 20th January, 2006. The
perusal of these applications as filed reveal
that in para 1 the previous history about

¶784

¶785

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶786

filing of writ petition and then its pendency

¶787

and death of concerned petitioner in the
meanwhile and date of death is pointed out. In
Civil Application No.995 of 2006 the first
sentence in para 2 mentions that petitioner
No.1 Dhondiram expired on 16th January, 1992
while last sentence in paragraph 1 mentions
that date of death as 20th May, 1994. Para 2
states that application to bring his legal
heirs was required to be moved within 90 days

¶788

but then applicants were not aware about
pendency of writ petition before this Court.
The petition was being prosecuted by deceased.
Proposed legal heir 1-A Shahu S/o Dhondiram
Havle received letter addressed to Dhondiram

¶789

by advocate appearing on behalf of deceased
and that letter informed that writ petition
would be listed for final hearing. Hence said
Shahu met with Advocate and during discussion
Shahu communicated death of his father
Dhondiram to that Advocate. That Advocate

¶790

then asked Shahu to bring death certificate
and the certificate in respect of his legal
heirs and Vakalatnama signed by all of them.

¶791

¶792

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶793

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶794

These formalities were completed on 23rd
December, 2005. The civil application,
therefore, could be drafted on 23rd December,
2005. With little difference i.e. difference
in date of the death, the contentions in all
other applications are identical. There is
some error in the matter because in civil
application No.997 of 2006 it is mentioned at
the end of paragraph 1 that petitioner No.1
Pandurang died on 16th January, 1992. Rest of
the dates are identical.

¶795

16.The Respondents have pointed out that
civil application No.997 of 2006 filed for
condoning delay in bring legal heirs of
deceased Petitioner no.7 on record, is signed
and sworn by one Tubiram S/o Dharma Havale @
Kadam, who is total stranger i.e. unrelated
with deceased Pandurang. They have also
pointed out that civil appliction No.999 of
2006, filed by the legal heirs of Petitioner
No.16 Dharma is signed by a stranger to family
by name Sahebrao pandurabg Havle. It is
apparent Sahebrao should have signed civil
application No. 997 of 2006 and Tubiram should

¶796

¶797

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶798

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶799

have sworn civil application No.999 of 2006.
Thought not much importance can be given to
these facts, it reveals casual approach.
However, it is also clear that said legal
heirs of deceased petitioners cannot be solely
blamed for the same.

¶800

17.Perusal of orders dated 10th October,
2005 passed by this Court reveal that on that
day learned counsel for petitioners informed
this Court that Respondent No.1 has expired

¶801

and, therefore, he sought time to file
application for substitution. The learned
counsel then appearing for Respondents gave no
objection. The statement made by learned
counsel for Petitioners, therefore, reveals
that before 10th October, 2005 petitioners had

¶802

instructed learned counsel about death of
respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 had
expired on 20th February, 2005. Thus, a
comparatively recent event and need to
substitute legal heirs was within knowledge of
petitioners and the contention is that deaths
of Petitioner Nos.1, 4, 7, 12 and 16, which
had taken place between 1992 to 2004 could not

¶803

¶804

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶805

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶806

be communicated to the learned counsel. The

¶807

contention cannot be accepted. Similarly,
when applications were drafted on or after
23rd December, 2005 for condoning delay, the
orders passed by this Court ought to have been
pointed out therein. On 28th November, 2005
itself this Court had dismissed petition as
against Respondent No.1. Hence, while
explaining delay in bringing his legal heirs
on record, reference to order dated 28th
November, 2005 was essential. On 6th July,
1992 the petition was already dismissed
against Respondent Nos.2 and 5. In the facts
noted above, this order does not figure
anywhere in any of these applications. The
death of Respondent No.3 Bhanudas (long back)
has been noted by this Court in its order
dated 10th March, 2010 and that development
also is not commented upon.

¶808

18.Very same story is pressed into service
in an attempt to explain delay in bringing
legal heirs of Respondent No.1 on record.
Perusal of civil application No.1000 of 2006
reveals that very same format used for

¶809

¶810

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶811

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶812

petitioners has been adopted for said purpose.

¶813

In last sentence of paragraph 1 it is
mentioned that Respondent no.1 Pandurang
expired on 20th February, 2005. It is then
contended that the applicant who has sworn
affidavit was not aware of the pendency of the
writ petition and received a letter addressed
by Advocate wherein it was informed that writ
petition was to be listed for final hearing.
The applicant met the Advocate and during
discussion told about death of Respondent no.

¶814

1. There, the date of death disclosed is 20th
February, 2005. Then the same story about
counsel asking for necessary documents,
compliance thereof by 23rd December, 2005 and
drafting of application accordingly appears.

¶815

19.The perusal of applications, therefore,
clearlyshowthatat-leastinall

¶816

applications, as filed, the death of either
petitioner or respective respondent is not
claimed to be an unknown event. The only
unknown event is pendency of writ petition
before this Court. The knowledge of that
pendencyisacquiredbypetitioners/

¶817

¶818

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶819

applicants because of letter sent by Advocate
to them. The first date which appears in the
applications is 23rd December, 2005 i.e. the
date by which the compliance with the request
of learned counsel for the Petitioners is
alleged to be completed. The petitioners have
not given any other date in entire petition or
applications. Considering the length of delay
and observations of Honourable Apex Court
about approach when delay is huge, it was
expected of petitioners/ applicants to produce

¶820

on record the alleged letter written by
counsel or then to mention the date on which
the letter was received. The petitioners have
not disclosed that date, have not filed said

¶821

letter nor office copy of any of such
communication is produced on record on their
behalf by anybody. Which petitioner or legal
heirs of petitioner had contacted counsel
prior to 10th October, 2005, was it in

¶822

persuance of alleged letter, whether letter is
of date after 10th October, 2005, who pointed
out death of respondent No.1 are all important
particulars conspicuously missing.

¶823

¶824

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶825

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶826

20.The events which transpired on 10th
October, 2005 before this Court are,
therefore, significant in this background.
The learned senior Advocate appearing for
Respondents has attempted to point out to this
Court that the matter was appearing on board
for final hearing since long i.e. much prior
to 10th October, 2005. In that view of the
matter, the alleged letter and its forwarding/
receipt assumes importance. That has not been
explained at all.

¶827

21.As the delay is huge, heavy burden was
upon applicants to explain the same to the
satisfaction of this Court. The effort made
is halfhearted. After the reply, opposing the

¶828

prayers for condonation of delay came to be
filed, there is no attempt by applicants to
file any counter or additional affidavit.
When delay is huge and negligence is apparent,
heavy burden was upon petitioners to make
clear breast of matter and show an honest
attitude. Story as pressed into service shows
its absence and too casual approach. I am,
therefore, not in a position to accept the

¶829

¶830

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶831

explanation as just and sufficient to condone
the huge delay in bringing legal heirs of
Petitioner Nos.1, 4, 7, 12, 16 and Respondent
No.1 on record. The applications lack
material particulars and do not show bonafide
approach. The applications are, therefore,
rejected.

¶832

22.The other contentions about the abatement
of cause now needs to be looked into. In any
case, it is admitted position that Respondent
Nos.2, 3 and 1 have also expired and petition
against Respondent Nos.2 and 5 has been
dismissed on 6th July, 1992. The death of
Respondent No.3 in February 1995 is taken note
of on 10th March, 2010. Respondent No.2 has
expired on 25th June, 1991 and Respondent No.
5, is not party in petition since 6th July,
1992. The petitioners/ applicants have not
taken any steps in relation to respondent
Nos. 2, 3 and 5 till date. It is not
explained why such steps could not be taken
when in relation to others, after alleged
letters, applications have been moved. So,
position on record, as on today, is, petition

¶833

¶834

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶835

is already dismissed as against Respondent
Nos.2 and 5. This Court has today not
condoned delay of 268 days in bringing legal
heirs of Respondent No.1 on record. It is,
therefore, obvious that petition also stands
dismissed and abated against respondent No.1.
The death of Respondent No.3 is in February,
1995. In this situation, it is apparent that
as there are no steps taken whatsoever,
petition also abates as against Respondent No.
3.

¶836

23.The nature of controversy has been
briefly noted in the facts above. Shri

¶837

Choudhari Advocate for the Petitioners has
relied upon judgment of learned Single Bench
of this Court in the case of "Baba Hari Mohite

¶838

and others V/s Dinkar Ramchandra Sapkal and

¶839

others" (supra)where the learned Single Judge
has stated test to find out whether cause of
action survives where there are more than one
plaintiff or defendants. It has been held
that if cause of action survives, suit does
not abate and surviving plaintiffs/ defendants
can proceed with the suit. The observations,

¶840

¶841

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶842

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶843

as contained in paragraph 11, show that
learned Single Judge was satisfied that there
would not be any inconsistent decrees if the
suit proceeded and was decreed in favour of
the petitioners even if the order of dismissal
of suit as abated against one Banubai Mohite
remained on file. The learned Single Judge
has noted that interest of petitioners before
it and said Banubai were common but it was not
joint and indivisible. It was also noticed
that every petitioner had a separate house and

¶844

they were not joint owners as observed by
Courts below. Court has held that merely
because petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were staying
together, it did not mean that they were joint
and their rights and interest were also joint,
inseparable and undividable. There, the
petitioners and deceased Banubai had filed
suit R.C.S. NO.278 of 1988 for declaration,
injunction and also for mandatory injunction
seeking directions to respondents in High
Court to remove the obstruction in enjoyment
of their rights of the way and use of the
door, as shown in the map. Thus, the

¶845

¶846

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶847

observations made above are after looking to
the nature of suit, as filed, and after
noticing that deceased Banubai and petitioners
were on same side. In the case of "Nagina
Singh and others V/s Naga Singh and others"

¶848

(supra)the Honourable Apex Court has
condoned delay in filing application for
substitution of legal heirs of one of the
appellants in First Appeal, after noticing
that parties were litigating since about 28
years. This is in the background of the fact
that the application for substitution by legal
representatives of wife was allowed in an
appeal challenging decree for partition and
all coparceners were on record. The rejection
of prayer to substitute legal representatives
of daughter was found to be unsustainable as
daughter herself was brought on record due to
death of original Appellant. As all
contesting parties were already on record, in
these facts, the delay was condoned. The
observations about non-abatement of appeal are
in this background.

¶849

24.In the case of "Parvez Rustom Neknoor V/s

¶850

¶851

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶852

Rustom Ardeshir Nekoo" (supra) learned Single
Judge has considered the question of abatement
in Review proceedings. The petitioner Parvez
before High Court had got himself impleaded in
one of the civil appeals bearing No.666 of
198t as Appellant No.3 but he failed to get
himself impleaded in another appeal No. 702 of
1985. Appeals were dismissed by 4th
Additional District Judge, Pune and the
Appellant i.e. original defendant No.1 was
given time to vacate suit premises. Said
Parvez then preferred writ petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India which
came to be registered as Writ Petition No.2581
of 1991. The petition was admitted and
execution of decree was stayed by learned
Single Judge. During its pendency, one of the
respondents therein (original defendant No.2)
expired. Civil Application NO.4434 of 1988
was moved for substitution and her two
daughters were sought to be brought on record.
Petitioner Parvez stated that he himself was
one of the legal heirs. That civil
application was dismissed by Additional

¶853

¶854

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶855

Registrar for non-removal of office objections
against one proposed legal heir 1-B on 8th
March, 1999. No steps were taken by
Petitioner Parvez to get this dismissal set
aside or to get application restored. On 21st
December, 2000 civil application No.4434 of
1988 then partly alive, was considered and
High Court found that because of dismissal of
that application against heir 1-B impugned
decree for eviction had become final. After
recording that finding, this Court found that
main writ petition itself would not survive as
there could be no two inconsistent decrees in
one suit. The civil application was,
therefore, rejected and, therefore, writ
petition also automatically stood dismissed,
as abated. After this, petitioner Parvez
moved civil application No.171 of 2002 for
restoration with prayer that order of
Additional Registrar dated 8th March, 1999 as
well as order of Court dated 21st December,
2001 be set aside and civil application No.
4434 of 1988 as well as writ petition No.2581
of 2002 filed by him should be considered on

¶856

¶857

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶858

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶859

merits. It is in this background that the
question of abatement has been looked into.

¶860

After considering various judgments the

¶861

learned Single Judge of this Court has found
that because of orders dated 8th March, 1999
writ petition against one of the legal heirs
of deceased Respondent No.1 was required to be
treated as dismissed. Net effect thereof was,
dismissal of writ petition against one of the
heirs and hence of confirmation of decree of
eviction, the question as to what would happen
when decree is single and indivisible is
looked into and it is noticed there could not

¶862

be two inconsistent decrees, one against
deceased respondent and the other against
surviving respondent.

¶863

25.In Civil Appeal No. 6291 of 2010 "Budh

¶864

Ram and others V/s Bansi and others" reported
in 2010 AIR SCW 5071 Honourable Apex Court has
delivered judgment on 5th August, 2010.
There, after noticing the facts at hand, it is
found by the Honourable Apex Court that every
co-owner has a right to possession and
enjoyment of each and every part of property.

¶865

¶866

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶867

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶868

Therefore, in theory, every co-owner has
interest in every infinitesimal portion of the
subject matter, each has a right irrespective
of the quantity of its interest, to be in
possession of every part and parcel of the
property jointly with others. A co-owner of
property owns every part of the composite
property along with others. Honourable Apex
Court further noticed that there a declaratory
decree was passed in favour of Respondents
before it i.e. plaintiffs and one Smt. Parwatu
to the effect that they were co-owners,
entitled to joint possession. The Appellants
had sought reliefs against Smt. Parwatu before
Appellate Court as there was decree in her
favour. The observations also show that she
was impleaded in suit as proforma Respondent.
Honourable Apex Court has noted that by such
participation, she had a right to contest
appeal and after her death on 19th November,
2000 that right devolved upon her heirs.
Hence, Appeal against Smt. Parwatu stood
abated. The first Appellate Court had
rejected application for condonation of delay

¶869

¶870

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶871

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶872

as well as for substitution of her legal
representatives. The Apex Court, therefore,
addressed itself to question whether appeal
abated in toto or only in respect of share of
Parwatu. The conclusion of High Court that
there was possibility of first Appellate Court
reversing the judgment of trial Court has been
found to be correct and hence possibility of
two contradictory decrees coming into being
i.e. one in favour of Smt. Parwatu and other

¶873

in favour of Appellants, is also noticed. The
view of High Court is, therefore, upheld and
whole appeal is held to have abated.

¶874

26.In the case of "Govind Laxman Jadhav /s
Namdeo Balu Jadhav" (supra) learned Single

¶875

Judge of this Court has considered question of

¶876

abatement in a suit for removal of

¶877

encroachment in second appeal. Appellants had

¶878

filed a suit which came to be decreed and then
appeal by defendants was allowed. During

¶879

pendency of appeal original defendant No.2
expired and his legal representatives were
brought on record. As decree against other
Respondents in second appeal and defendant No.

¶880

¶881

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶882

2 was joint and unseparable, appeal before
District Court was found abated and the act of
allowing such appeal by Appellate Court was,
therefore, found erroneous. The entire appeal
itself was thus found abated.

¶883

27.Here, the petitioners claim to be tenants
of all Respondents together. Entire body of
Petitioners are claiming a single tenancy
against all Respondents jointly as a body.
Thus, tenancy is not claimed in relation to
any specific portion separately by petitioners

¶884

or then from any particular respondent.
Tenancy is, therefore, one and indivisible.
They are claiming to be joint tenants.
Similarly, even in relation to alleged
agreement of sale dated 28th March, 1954 the
position is not different. On the strength of
one agreement only all Respondents are trying

¶885

to disprove claim of tenancy of all
petitioners. There is no separate agreement
by any of the Respondents with any of the
petitioners. That contract is, therefore,
also single and indivisible. Finality
attached qua some of the Respondents,

¶886

¶887

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶888

WITH

¶889

CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶890

therefore, needs to be noticed and no

¶891

inconsistent orders are feasible.

¶892

28.In this situation, the question whether
consideration of controversy by Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal in Revision is right or wrong

¶893

cannot be looked into on merits. If a view
that exercise of jurisdiction by Maharashtra

¶894

Revenue Tribunal is vitiated, is to be

¶895

reached, opportunity of hearing to all
respondents is essential. That opportunity
cannot be extended to Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3

¶896

and 5. The adjudication by Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal in their favour has attained

¶897

finality. In this situation, if at the
instance of petitioners matter is to be heard

¶898

on merits, this Court cannot pass an order
which will prejudice the interest of the

¶899

deceased Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 as the

¶900

interest of other respondents available on

¶901

record is joint and unseparable. It cannot be

¶902

divided and hence there cannot be any
adjudication in relation to the merits of the

¶903

controversy as it may result in a
contradictory judgment. It is, therefore,

¶904

¶905

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990

¶906

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶907

obvious that the grievance in entire petition
itself stands abated and the petition cannot
be examined on merits.

¶908

29.The prayer for condonation of delay for
bringing legal heirs of petitioner Nos.1, 4,
12, and 16 is already rejected. With the
result, adjudication by Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal attains finality as against them. A
judgment to the contrary, therefore, cannot be
delivered at the instance of other petitioners
by this Court. Hence, even on that count, the
adjudication on merits is not possible.

¶909

30.In view of these findings, civil
application Nos. 995 to 1000 of 2006, as filed
by petitioners, are rejected. The entire

¶910

petition is dismissed as abated against
Respondents. Rule discharged. However, in
the circumstances of the case, there shall be
no order as to costs.

¶911

 [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.]

¶912

Dated:-17/01/2011.
ans/2094

¶913

¶914

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 AND 1000 OF 2006

¶915

WRIT PETITION NO.: 2094 OF 1990 WITH CIVIL APPLICATIONNOS. 995, 996, 997, 998, 999 & 1000 OF 2006

¶916

Date of decision: 17th/18th JANUARY, 2011.

¶917

For approval and signature

¶918

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE

¶919

B. P. DHARMADHIKARI.

¶920

`Sd/-`

¶921

`.`	`Whether Reporters of local papers` `may be allowed to see the judgment?`	`...`	`Yes`
`.`	`To be referred to the Reporter or not?`	`...`	`No`
`.`	`Whether Their Lordships wish to see` `the fair copy of the judgment?`	`...`	`No`
`.`	`Whether this case involves a substantia` `question of law as to the interpretatio` `of the Constitution of India, 1950, or` `order made thereunder?`	`l...` `n` `any`	`No`
`.`	`Whether it is to be circulated to the` `Civil Judges?`	`...`	`No`
`.`	`Whether the case involves an important` `question of law and whether a copy of` `the judgment should be sent to Nagpur,` `Goa and Bombay offices?`	`...`	`No`

¶922

Sd/-

¶923

[G. F. ANSARI]
PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE
 HONOURABLE JUDGE

Dhondiram Narayan Halawe and Others. v. Pandurang Bhagwant Naik and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhondiram Narayan Halawe and Others. v. Pandurang Bhagwant Naik and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Raibhan Shinde Vs Sundarbai Raibhan Shinde and Anr.

Umashankar Baburao Samshette Vs Vimalbai Virbhadra Kaijkar and Ors.

Ramesh Sidram Bansode Vs Mahadeo Narayan Bansode and Anr.

N.E.S.High School and Another. Vs Devendra Pitambar Patil and Others.

Govind Bhaurao Hambarde Vs Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University and Ors.

Ashok Arjun Chormale and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.