Disposed

Rajkumar Shivdulare Shukla and Others v. Sanjay Gabaji Sonar and Others

Bombay HC11 Oct 2013CA/8806/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad disposed of two civil applications intervening in a writ petition. The court held that the land involved belonged to the applicants, distinct from the original owners in the writ petition, and is not affected by the adjudication therein.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition No.1975/1995 and the civil applications disposed of.

Rajkumar Shivdulare Shukla and Others Vs Sanjay Gabaji… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

 CAs 8806/13 & 9151/13 in WP 1975/95

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8806/2013 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9151/2013 IN

¶6

 WRIT PETITION NO.1975/1995

¶7

Rajkumar Shivdulare Shukla
and others.

¶8

...Applicants..

¶9

Versus

¶10

Sanjay Gabaji Sonar & others.

¶11

...Respondents...

¶12

 .....

¶13

Shri Mobin Shaikh, Advocate for applicants in both civil
applications.

¶14

Shri P.S. Dighe, Advocate for respondent nos.1 & 2.
Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, AGP for respondent nos.3 to 6.

¶15

 .....

¶16

CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
 RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
DATE: 11.10.2013

¶17

ORDER :

¶18

1]The applicants seek intervention and modification of

¶19

interim orders passed in the writ petition. Submission

¶20

is, writ petitioners have sold part of their holding

¶21

earlier to one Ramanlal Nerkar, who in turn sold it to

¶22

 CAs 8806/13 & 9151/13 in WP 1975/95

¶23

- 2 -

¶24

Sushilabai and applicants purchased that part from
Sushilabai. Applicants then sought N.A. permission and
Collector is not deciding that application because of
interim orders passed in Writ Petition No.1975/1995.

¶25

2]It is also stated that in writ petition, writ
petitioners (original owners) have questioned the N.A.
permission in relation to portion still owned by them.

¶26

3]It is, therefore, apparent that even if contention
of applicants is accepted, applicants' land / part is
entirely distinct and, therefore, the same cannot be
affected by any adjudication in Writ Petition No.
1975/1995. The applicants, therefore, have to make out
appropriate case before the Collector. If the Collector
is not willing to proceed further in the matter, it is
open to applicants to seek redressal of their grievance
before the competent forum in accordance with law.

¶27

4]Hence, with said liberty to applicants, we dispose
of both the civil applications.

¶28

ndk/c11101311

Rajkumar Shivdulare Shukla and Others v. Sanjay Gabaji Sonar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Shivdulare Shukla and Others v. Sanjay Gabaji Sonar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Omkar Builders and Developers Thr Partner Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Nandkishor Laxminarayan Toshniwal

Randhir Rangnathrao Jogdand Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

M/S Moti Ratan Estate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Babasaheb Vithoba Garje and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhanudas Laxman Sakhre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others