Allowed

Ramdas Gorakh Jagdale and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Apr 2013WP/1639/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged revenue orders that deleted the petitioners' names from land records. Quashing the impugned orders, the Court directed that the petitioners' names be restored to reflect their 1/3rd share in specific land parcels based on a prior High Court judgment. No costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of the Revenue Authorities were quashed and set aside. The petitioners' names were directed to be recorded in the relevant revenue record to the extent of 1/3rd share in land gut No. 4

Ramdas Gorakh Jagdale and Ors. Vs the State of Mah… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 wp 1639.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1639 OF 2013

¶4

Ramdas S/o Garakh Jagdale, Age : 65 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Hiwara, Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶5

Subhash S/o Garakh Jagdale, Age : 52 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o as above.

¶6

Chatrabhuj S/o Garakh Jagdale, Age : 50 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o As above.

¶7

Shivaji S/o Shahaji Jagdale, Age : 25 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o As above.

¶8

Tanaji S/o Shahaji Jagdale, Age : 23 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o As above.

¶9

Mankavati D/o Shahaji Jagdale, Died through L.Rs.

¶10

6A Abhishek S/o Navnath Ghule, Age : 5 Years, Occu. : Nil, R/o As above.

¶11

	2	wp 1639.13
6B.	Komal S/o Navnath Ghule, Age : 3 Years, Occu. : Nil,
	Both minors through the Guardian petitioner No. 4.
7.	Moharbai Shahaji Jagdale, Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Agril. & H.H. R/o as above. ..	Petitioners
	Versus
1.	The State of Maharashtra.
2.	The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.
3.	The Additional Collector, Osmanabad District Osmanabad.
4.	The Sub Divisional Officer, Bhoom, Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad.
5.	Vishwanath S/o Shahu Jagdale, Age : 68 Years,, Occu. : Agril., R/o Hiwara, Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad.
6.	Babu S/o Shahu Jagdale, Age : 66 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o As above.

¶12

3 wp 1639.13

¶13

Bhau S/o Shahu Jagdale, Age : 64 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o As above.

¶14

Nana S/o Shahu Jagdale, Age : 61 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o As above.

¶15

Chandrakant S/o Shahu Jagdale, Age : 59 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o As above.

¶16

Bajirao S/o Shahu Jagdale, Age : 50 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o As above. .. Respondents

¶17

Shri Kishor R. Doke, Advocate for Petitioners. Smt. Y. M. Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for Respondents/State. Shri G. V. Sukale, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 to 10.

¶18

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 17TH APRIL, 2013.

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶20

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

¶21

The only issue in the present petition would be as to whether the name of the present petitioners can be deleted to the

¶22

4 wp 1639.13

¶23

extent of 1/3rd share in the land gut No. 42/C and 113/A pursuant to the judgment of the Civil Court confirmed up to the High Court.

¶24

Shri Doke, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even in the judgment delivered in the second appeal, this Court has observed that the petitioners are entitled to their 1/3rd share of Tatyaba. The only observation was that the present petitioners cannot claim declaration in respect of particular half share of Indirabai. The judgment of the Civil Court have not been properly interpreted by the Revenue Authorities.

¶25

Shri Sukale, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 10 submits that, pursuant to the judgment of the High Court, the Revenue Authorities have properly considered the fact that the petitioners do not have any share. The orders passed by the Civil Court and confirmed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 444/2007 has been properly construed by the Revenue Authorities. No illegality has been committed. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners have an alternate remedy available, so also there is delay.

¶26

5 wp 1639.13

¶27

I have gone through the judgment delivered by the Civil Court. This Court in Second Appeal No. 444/2007 has observed as under :

¶28

"7. In view of the above position, it is clear that the present appellants/plaintiffs are not seeking declaration and title in respect of 1/3rd share which they inherited from Tatya as heir of Tatya. There is no dispute that the said 1/3rd share is in their possession. They are claiming declaration and injunction in respect of the properties of Indirabai. In absence of any partition of share of Indirabai between the plaintiffs and the defendants, the plaintiffs cannot claim declaration in respect of particular 1/2 share as of their share inherited from Indirabai's property."

¶29

In view of the same, even the High Court has accepted that 1/3rd share of Tatya is in possession of the plaintiffs i. e. present petitioners. The Revenue Authorities are bound by the judgment of Civil Court. In the light of the above, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the petitioners' names be recorded in the relevant revenue record to the extent of 1/3rd share in the land gut No. 42/C and 113/A.

¶30

6 wp 1639.13

¶31

Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No

¶32

costs.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶35

bsb/April 13

Ramdas Gorakh Jagdale and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdas Gorakh Jagdale and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

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

Lahu Rangnath Shinde and Anr. Vs Sunity Kakasaheb Mogal

Vishnu Vithalrao Banapure Vs the Secretary, Latur Education Society and Others

Latur District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Vilas Sheshrao Deshmukh

Shantaram Bhikan Patil Vs Sau Nababai Pandurang Ghule and Anr.

Dilip Motilal Nahar Vs Popatlal Motilal Nahar and Others

Kunal Ashokrao Aher Vs Govardhan Mohanlal Karwa and Others