Quashed

Haribai Digambar Bhise, L.R. Jamunabai Digambar Bhise v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC2 Jul 2014WP/1642/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding partition of land, the High Court quashed the Collector's and revisional authority's orders failing to account for the petitioner receiving only compensation for half the acquired land. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders passed by the Collector and the Additional Commissioner on 23.08.2011 and 20.12.2012 were quashed and set aside, and the matter remanded to the Collector.

Haribai Digambar Bhise, L.R. Jamunabai Digambar Bhise Vs the State… — Partition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP1642.2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1642 OF 2013

¶5

Haribai W/o Digambar Bhise (Deceased through L.Rs.) Jamunabai D/o Digambar Bhise

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

Mr J. S. Gavane, Advocate for petitioner Mr S. B. Bhapkar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4-A to 4-E

¶11

CORAM : N. W. SAMBRE, J. DATED : 02^ND JULY, 2014.

¶12

PER COURT: -

¶13

Heard both sides.

¶14

The petitioner, party to the decree for partition and separate possession passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Osmanabad, on 18th December, 1980, has questioned the order passed in revisional jurisdiction by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, and the order passed by the Collector in the said proceedings.

¶15

It is the claim of the petitioner that the suit for partition was decreed ordering partition of Survey No. 58, which was subsequently

¶16

WP1642.2013

¶17

-2-

¶18

allotted Gut No. 119. The said Gut number was originally consisting of 2.64 Hector land, however, part of the said land to the extent of 1.39 Hector was acquired for Raigavane Project. The Collector in view of the fact that the land which was meant for acquisition, rejected the objection preferred by the petitioner that the only remaining property is required to be partitioned. The revisional authority while considering the said objection in revision has observed that the petitioner was paid compensation of the acquired land and as such the land which remained i.e. 1.25 Hector is required to be given to the respondent.

¶19

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to page No. 70 of the record in hand which is a receipt dated 26th February, 1985 in favour of petitioner paying an amount of Rs. 8020.45/towards compensation of acquired land out of Gut No. 119. The learned Counsel has also invited attention of this Court to page No. 78 of the record in hand so as to demonstrate that the total compensation awarded for the land acquired out of Gut No. 119 was Rs. 16040.95/- and out of the said total compensation, half of amount i.e. Rs. 8020/- was paid to the petitioner.

¶20

In that view of the matter, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the order passed by the revisional authority and the Collector are liable to be quashed and set aside as the compensation received by petitioner is only to the extent of half of the share in the acquired land. He submits that, he is entitled for half of share in the

¶21

WP1642.2013

¶22

-3-

¶23

remaining land i.e. 1.25 Hector as the remaining half share of the compensation can be paid to the present respondent.

¶24

According to petitioner, the learned revisional Court has not taken into account the above referred facts. The learned Counsel for the respondent - Decree Holder has supported the order and submits that he is fighting for his right since last more than 35 years. He submits that the order passed by the Collector and the Revisional Authority are after considering the revenue record. He further submits that the revisional authority has also taken into account the reports submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records in pursuance of the Decree passed by the Civil Court.

¶25

Though the suit was ordered to be decreed on 18th December, 1980, it appears that the same was the subject matter of appeal before the appellate Court. The parties to the proceedings have filed execution on 11th September, 2009. Perusal of the execution proceedings reflect that the execution is sought to the extent of share declared by the trial Court in the Decree.

¶26

Having considered rival contentions of the parties, from the discussion of the facts herein above more particularly the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it reflects that the petitioner herein was paid half of the compensation awarded towards the acquisition of land i.e. 1.39 Hector out of total land i.e. 2.64 hector of gut No. 119, of which

¶27

WP1642.2013

¶28

partition is ordered. The above referred fact that the petitioner was paid only half of the compensation amount is lost sight of by both the authorities i.e. Collector and the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad. In that view of the matter, the orders impugned in the present petition passed by the Collector on 23rd August, 2011 confirmed in Revision by the revisional authority on 20th December, 2012 are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Collector for considering the objection of the petitioner afresh in the light of the above referred observations.

¶29

It is observed that the executing Court or the authority thereunder can't travel beyond the decree and as such the parties to the present proceedings are at liberty to take appropriate steps as are available in law for execution of decree.

¶30

10. Writ Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶31

Punde

Haribai Digambar Bhise, L.R. Jamunabai Digambar Bhise v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haribai Digambar Bhise, L.R. Jamunabai Digambar Bhise v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Kishor Gulabchand Bhandari Vs Sumati Sahebrao Ghadge and Another

Sabhapati, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Newasa and Anr. Vs Sanjay Dada Bansode and Anr.

Mahadeo Surybhan Parhad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vitthal Mohan Patil, Died Thr. L.Rs. Bhagwan and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Ahmedpur Vs Bapurao Raghunath Kendre

Mahalaxmi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs Santosh Dnyaneshwar Pawar and Others