Quashed

Sanjay Rampratap Khandelwal v. Suresh Natthuji Wakde and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Nov 2011WP/6773/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the impugned order directing mutation cancellation. Holding that the order deviated from the respondents' prayer for transaction cancellation, the Court remanded the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer for a decision in accordance with law, dismissing the alternate remedy argument.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed and set aside; matter remanded to Sub Divisional Officer for decision under S. 8, 9, 31 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.

Sanjay Rampratap Khandelwal Vs Suresh Natthuji Wakde and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 WP 6773.............2011 - [ J ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6773 OF 2011

¶4

Sanjay S/o Rampratap Khandelwal Age : 35 Yrs., Occ. Business & Agril., R/o : Jafrabad, Dist. : Jalna. .... PETITIONER

¶5

V E R S U S

¶6

Suresh S/o Natthuji Wakde Age : 46 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Jafrabad, Dist. Jalna Through G.P.A. Pradip S/o Kesardev Agrawal Age : 27 Yrs., Occ. Business, R/o : Jafrabad, Dist. Jalna. 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Jalna. .... RESPONDENTS

¶7

Mr. R.F.Totla, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. R.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for Resp. No. 1.

¶8

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6781 OF 2011

¶9

Anil S/o Rampratap Khandelwal Age : 45 Yrs., Occ. Business & Agril., R/o : Jafrabad, Dist. : Jalna. .... PETITIONER

¶10

2 WP 6773.............2011 - [ J ]

¶11

V E R S U S

¶12

Suresh S/o Natthuji Wakde Age : 46 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Jafrabad, Dist. Jalna Through G.P.A. Pradip S/o Kesardev Agrawal Age : 27 Yrs., Occ. Business, R/o : Jafrabad, Dist. Jalna. 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Jalna. .... RESPONDENTS

¶13

Mr. R.F.Totla, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. R.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for Resp. No. 1.

¶14

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7520 OF 2011

¶15

Sushil S/o Rampratap Khandelwal Age : 36 Yrs., Occ. Business, R/o : Jafrabad, Dist. : Jalna. 2. Pralhad S/o Rakhmaji Diwate Age : 49 Yrs., Occ. Business, R/o : Jafrabad, Dist. : Jalna. .... PETITIONERS

¶16

V E R S U S

¶17

Suresh S/o Natthuji Wakde Age : 46 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Jafrabad, Dist. Jalna Through G.P.A.

¶18

3 WP 6773.............2011 - [ J ]

¶19

Pradip S/o Kesardev Agrawal Age : 27 Yrs., Occ. Business, R/o : Jafrabad, Dist. Jalna. 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Jalna. .... RESPONDENTS

¶20

Mr. R.F.Totla, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. R.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for Resp. No. 1.

¶21

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 17/11/2011.

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶23

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶24

Heard Mr. R.F.Totala, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R.S.Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the respondents and Mr. S.B.Pulkundwar, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for the State.

¶25

The petitioners have impugned the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on an application moved by the present respondents U/s 8,9 and 31 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation

¶26

4 WP 6773.............2011 - [ J ]

¶27

of Holdings Act, 1947 [ For short, ‘ said Act ’ ]. In the said application, the

¶28

present respondents had made the following prayer,

¶29

“ The Authority be pleased to allow the petition and to order to declare that the transfers of 1 guntha of land from G.No. 70 ( old survey NO. 47 ) of Jafrabad, as per sale deed reg. At Sr. No. 5 275 of 14/05/1981 of S.R.O. Jalna as well as document at Sr. No. 926 dated 22/04/1998 at S.R.O., Jalna are illegal and void and to order to cancel the transaction as against the provisions of Bom. Consolidation of Holdings and Fragmentation Act.

¶30

And to grant any other relief in the interest of justice which this Authority deems fit ”.

¶31

The Sub Divisional Officer decided the said application filed

¶32

by the respondents vide the impugned orders and directed to change the mutations pursuant to the sale transactions impugned.

¶33

The petitioners against the said order filed Appeal before the Collector. The same was not entertained on the ground that the Appeal is not tenable. Thereafter, the present Writ Petitions are filed assailing the

¶34

5 WP 6773.............2011 - [ J ]

¶35

order of the Sub Divisional Officer.

¶36

Mr. R.S.Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the respondent

¶37

no. 1 submits that the Writ Petitions may not be entertained in view of the fact that the Revision U/s 35 of the said Act would be maintainable. In view of the said alternate remedy, the Writ Petitions may not be entertained.

¶38

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the impugned order and the application given by the present respondents U /s 8,9 and 31 of the said Act.

¶39

From the perusal of the prayers in the said application, it is manifest that the petitioners had prayed for cancellation of the sale transactions as they are barred by the provisions of the said Act. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is manifest that the authority has only said that the mutation entries effected pursuant to the sale transactions be cancelled. The respondents had never prayed for such relief. The prayer was that the sale transactions effected in favour of the present petitioners are illegal and void and deserve to be cancelled as per the provisions of the said Act. The impugned order passed is not in consonance with the application made by the present respondents. In light of that, the

¶40

6 WP 6773.............2011 - [ J ]

¶41

impugned order can not be sustained. The same are quashed and set aside and the parties are relegated before the Sub Divisional Officer ( Revenue ), Jalna, who shall decide the application filed by the present respondents U/s 8, 9 and 31 of the said Act in accordance with law. All points which are agitated by the respective parties in these Writ Petitions are kept open.

¶42

The parties shall appear before the Sub Divisional Officer ( Revenue ), Jalna on 05/12/2011.

¶43

Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶44

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ]

¶45

KNP/WP 6773.............2011 - [ J ]

Sanjay Rampratap Khandelwal v. Suresh Natthuji Wakde and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Rampratap Khandelwal v. Suresh Natthuji Wakde and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Bhavarlal Sharma Vs the Partner, Videocon India and Ors.

Hiraman L Saraf Dead Th Lrs Bhagwat H Saraf Dead Th Lrs Ujwala Rajendra Patil and Ors. Vs Madansingh Babusinh Rajput Deceased Th Lrs Chandrashekher Madansinh Rajput and Ors.

Sudam Baburao Bagul and Anr. Vs Mushir Ahmed Ayyub Shah and Rs

Kausalyabai Thakaji Shedute and Ors. Vs Dharamraj Bhavanishankar Thigale, Thr. L.Rs. Satish and Ors.

Raghunath Sopan Shinde and Ors. Vs Dattatraya Dagdu Shinde and Anr.

Vinaykrao Manikrao Khopade and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.