Partly allowed

Shri. Ganpati Bhairu Aaragade (Decd) Heirs, Shri. Rama Ganpati Aaragade v. Shri. Bhiva Dadu Shetake and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Apr 2013WP/1084/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction against a district court order directing the Tahsildar to hear plaintiffs before deciding possession proceedings under the Tenancy Act. The court expedited the pending tenancy case, directing disposal by December 31, 2013, allowing the petitioner to seek time-bound resolution for possession.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to expedite the Tenancy proceedings before the Tahsildar to be concluded not later than December 31, 2013.

Shri. Ganpati Bhairu Aaragade (Decd) Heirs, Shri. Rama… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp-1084-13.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1084 of 2013

¶3

Ganpati Bhairu Aaragade (deceased) through heir Rama Ganpati Aaragade

¶4

: Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

Bhiva Dadu Shetake & Ors.

¶7

: Respondents

¶8

Mr. V. B. Rajure for the Petitioner

¶9

CORAM:- R M SAVANT, J DATED :- 22^nd APRIL, 2013.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 31-8-2012 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge 1 Kolhapur by

¶12

which order the Appeal in question being Misc Civil Appeal No. 212 of 2011 came to be dismissed and the directions contained in the operative part two of the said order came to be issued. The sum and substance of the directions is that the Tahsildar should not decide the proceedings relating to the possession of the suit property without hearing the Plaintiffs. It is the further directed that the Defendant Nos.1 to 5 would not act in any manner which is prejudicial to the suit property.

¶13

2 The Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner i.e. the Defendant No.1 states that the Petitioner would be satisfied if this Court directs the Tahsildar to decide the said proceedings being Tenancy

mmj

1/5

wp-1084-13.sxw

/SR/19/09 within a particular time frame.

¶18

3 Before considering the grant of the said relief it would be necessary to refer to certain facts.

¶19

The Defendant No.1 is the heir of the original tenant one G.B. Aaragade. The original tenant it seems had filed proceedings under Section 32(g) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act 1949 (for short the said Act) before the Agricultural Land Tribunal (for short (ALT) Kagal). However, since the landlord had a certificate under Section 88 (c) of the said Act the purchase became in effective. Since the landlord did not take possession of the land in question, the 32(G) proceedings were restarted in the year 1969. However, an order came to be passed under Section 32(P) in favour of the landlord directing the authorities to hand over possession to him. The landlord accordingly took possession in the year 1983, thereafter by Sale Deed dated 14-7-1988 the landlord sold the land in question to the Plaintiffs by a registered Sale Deed. It is in 1989 that the Defendant No.1 restarted the proceedings under Section 32(G) of the said Act, which had became in effective in the year 1969. The application filed by the tenant i.e. the Defendant No.1 came to be rejected by the ALT Kagal.

¶20

Thereafter Appeal No.17 of 1989 filed by the tenant i.e. the Defendant No.1 before the SDO Karveer, which also came to be dismissed. The

mmj

2/5

wp-1084-13.sxw

Defendant No.1 thereafter filed a revision being No.118 of 1990 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The MRT by order dated 21-4-1999 allowed the revision and directed the fixing of the purchase price of half the land under Section 32(G). It is against the said order dated 21-4-1999 that the Plaintiffs filed a Writ Petition in this Court. However, it seems that the said Writ Petition was withdrawn with liberty to file say in the application No.10 of 2004 before the Tahsildar which application was filed for possession by the Defendant No.1. The purchase price was thereafter fixed by the ALT Kagal at Rs.1030/-. The said amount was accordingly deposited by the Defendant No.1 on 2-5-2003. On 9-6-2003 the ALT Kagal issued the certificate under Section 32(M). The Plaintiffs filed Tenancy Appeals No.24 of 2003 and 27 of 2003 before the SDO Karveer, against the grant of the 32(M) certificate to the Defendant No.1. The SDO Karveer dismissed both the Appeals. The Defendant No.1 accordingly applied for possession vide said application No.10 of 2004. The Tahsildar rejected the said application for want of jurisdiction. Against the said order the Defendant No.1 filed Appeal No.22 of 2008 before the SDO. The SDO by his order dated 4-7-2009 directed that the Defendant No.1 should be handed over possession of half the land. The Tahsildar as per the order passed by the SDO started the proceedings relating to possession being

mmj

3/5

wp-1084-13.sxw

No.Tenancy/SR/19/09 and issued notice on 22-6-2009 to the original landlords as well as the Plaintiffs. This resulted in the Plaintiffs filing the Suit in question for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from taking possession on the basis of the notice dated 26-11-2009.

¶29

4 In the said Suit, the Plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction which was allowed by the Trial Court by order dated 16-8-2011 on the ground that the Plaintiffs are in possession of the land in question by virtue of the Sale Deed executed by the landlord in the year 1988 and therefore the said possession had to be protected. The matter was carried in Appeal by the Defendant No.1. The Lower Appellate Court as indicated above has modified the order to the extent of the directions contained in paragraph 2 of the operative part. The directions to hear the Plaintiffs in the proceedings relating to the possession has its origins in the order passed in the earlier round of litigation wherein the Plaintiffs have not pressed the Writ Petition on the ground that they would file their reply to the application No.10 of 2004 filed by the Defendant No.1. It is in the said context that the Lower Appellate Court modified the order passed by the Trial Court and directed the Tahsildar not to decide the proceedings relating to possession i.e. Tenancy/SR/19/09 without hearing the Plaintiffs.

mmj

4/5

wp-1084-13.sxw

5 It is the submission of Mr. Rajure the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner i.e. the Defendant No.1 that though the 32(G) certificate under the said Act has been issued to him in the year 2003, the Defendant

¶34

No.1 has not been able to take possession of the property inspite of the said certificate. The Learned Counsel would contend that it would therefore be just and proper to direct the said proceedings before the Tahsildar to be decided within a particular time frame.

¶35

6 In the facts and circumstances as mentioned herein above, the hearing of the proceedings before the Tahsildar being Tenancy/SR/19/09 are expedited and directed to be disposed of latest by 31-12-2013 in terms of clause 2 of the operative part of the impugned order.

¶36

7 With the aforesaid directions the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶37

(R M SAVANT, J)

¶38

mmj

¶39

5/5

Shri. Ganpati Bhairu Aaragade (Decd) Heirs, Shri. Rama Ganpati Aaragade v. Shri. Bhiva Dadu Shetake and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Ganpati Bhairu Aaragade (Decd) Heirs, Shri. Rama Ganpati Aaragade v. Shri. Bhiva Dadu Shetake and Ors.

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

Sou. Suman Shivajirao Ghule Vs Shri. Dilip Changdeo Khare and Ors.

Mr. Atul Onkar Sahay Jauhari Vs Mrs. Neena Atul Jauhari

Vakas Mushtaque Patel Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Board, through Superintendent Engineer (Nodal Officer) and Anr.

Bharat Chaturbhuj Naik Vs Ranoji Chaturbhuj Naik

Smt. Muktabai Vasant Sonavane and Ors. Vs Smt. Hirabai Maruti Sonavane and Ors.

Nakhuda Mohammed Ali Rogay s/o. Nakhuda Mohammed Ameen Rogay Vs Anzar Ahmed and Ors.