Dismissed

Arvind Yallappa Kamble and Ors. v. Devastan Vyavastapan Samiti, Acschim Maharashtra, through Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Apr 2013WP/1683/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This warrantless writ petition challenged an order allowing road use on disputed land. The Court found no case for interference as lower courts concurently held plaintiffs undocumented for injunction against agricultural implement movement.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; no interference with lower court findings.

Arvind Yallappa Kamble and Ors. Vs Devastan Vyavastapan… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp1683-13.sxw

¶2

pvr

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1683 OF 2013

¶6

1.Arvind Yallappa Kamble & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. 1.Devastan Vyavastapan Samiti & Anr. ... Respondents

¶7

Mr.D.S.Sawant i/b. Mr.Rajesh B.Parab, for Petitioners.

¶8

CORAM : R.M.SAVANT , J.

¶9

DATE : 15^th APRIL , 2013.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

There is a concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below as

¶12

regards the petitioners'/plaintiffs’ dis-entitlement to the grant of the discretionary relief of temporary injunction for restraining the defendants to use Bandh/Road in question for carrying their agricultural implements and crops. Both the Courts below, on the basis of the material on record, have reached a conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to such a relief. The apprehension expressed on behalf of the plaintiffs that use of said Bandh / road would have adverse effect on the

¶13

crop of the plaintiffs, has also not been accepted by the Courts below.

¶14

pvr 2/2 wp1683-13.sxw

¶15

Both the plaintiffs and respondent herein i.e. defendant no.2 are tenants of the respondent no.1 herein. The plaintiffs and the defendant no.2 have been given the land for cultivation on yearly basis on payment of rent. Since the defendant no.2 requested for a right of way to carry his crops and agricultural implements, the respondent no.1 Devastan Committee allowed the defendant no.2 to use Bandh which is in the land which has been given to the plaintiffs to use as road. This was done by order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the Devastan Committee. It is on consideration of the said order which was passed by the Devastan Committee, which order has been passed on the basis of the report of an Engineer, that both the Courts below came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the grant of an injunction.

¶16

Having heard Shri.Sawant, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and having perused the impugned order, in my view no case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Arvind Yallappa Kamble and Ors. v. Devastan Vyavastapan Samiti, Acschim Maharashtra, through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Yallappa Kamble and Ors. v. Devastan Vyavastapan Samiti, Acschim Maharashtra, through Secretary and Ors.

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. Anukul Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chinar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors.

Sawalaram Anand Mahar Vs Mrs. Vaneeta Vijay Bhirmal and Ors.

Mr. Jagganath Sambhu Mane Vs Mr. Dagadu Sopan Mane and Ors.

Shri. Vijay Prabhakar Galinde and Ors. Vs Shri. Bharat Yashwant Gawade and Ors.

Revnisiddhppa Gursiddhppa Loni Vs Vishawanath Virapakshppa Avasekar (Sinc Decd) through Lrs, Arvind Viashwanath Avasekar and Ors.

Mr. Vishwas Anant Masurkar Vs Mr. Krishna Dhaku Bandkar