Dismissed

Shri. Pramod Anandrao Rananavare and Ors. v. the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Apr 2014WP/1713/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Divisional Commissioner's order rejecting an application for soldier recuperation benefits on the ground of pending partition. The Court held that mutation entries and the record showed no partition by metes and bounds before the cut-off date of 31-7-2000, finding the Commissioner's decision justified and dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the Divisional Commissioner's order rejecting the application for soldier recuperation benefits.

Shri. Pramod Anandrao Rananavare and Ors. Vs the Divisional… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

sjs 902-WP-1713.2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE – CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1713 OF 2014

¶3

Pramod Anandrao Rananware & Others .... Petitioners Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune & Others .... Respondents

¶4

Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶5

CORAM: A.S. OKA &
 A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶6

DATED: APRIL 25, 2014

¶7

P.C:

¶8

1.The submissions were heard on the last
date. After fully arguing the petition, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
had sought time to take instructions. Today,

¶9

the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners is not present.

¶10

2.By this petition under Article 226 of

Page 1 of 5

sjs

902-WP-1713.2014

the Constitution of India, the petitioners have
challenged the Judgment and Order dated
31-1-2014, passed by the learned Divisional
Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, by which the
application made by the petitioners under
sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 has been rejected.

¶15

petitioners, the father of the first and second
petitioners and the deceased husband of the
third petitioner executed a Deed of Family
Settlement dated 11-8-1995. The case of the

¶16

petitioners is that the partition was effected
under the said Deed of Family Settlement by
metes and bounds. Admittedly, the cut-off date

¶17

in the present case was 31-7-2000. The
submission of the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners was that as the partition was
effected under the document dated 11-8-1995,
the same was before the cut-off date. It was

¶18

Page 2 of 5

¶19

sjs 902-WP-1713.2014

¶20

contended that as a result of the partition,
the holding of each petitioner would be less
than the prescribed slab, i.e. 1 hectare and 61
ares. The submission is that a written document
showing partition could not have been brushed
aside by the Divisional Commissioner.

¶21

4.We have considered the submissions.

¶22

The father of the first and second petitioners
Anandrao expired on 28-11-1997. A mutation
entry dated 21-7-1998 was effected by which the
names of the petitioners and the sister of the
first and second petitioners were mutated in
therevenuerecordsasthelegal
representatives of deceased Anandrao. The said
mutation entry does not refer to any partition
effected by metes and bounds.

¶23

reference to the application made by the third
petitioner to the Special Land Acquisition

¶24

Page 3 of 5

¶25

sjs 902-WP-1713.2014

¶26

Officer on 23-12-2009. Reliance is placed in
the said application on the Deed of Family
Settlement dated 11-8-1995. However, it is
contended in the said application that as per
the said Deed of Family Settlement, there was
an oral partition in the year 1998. Paragraph 5
of the said application records that effect was
given to the said partition on 16-8-2005. As
noted earlier, the mutation entry effected on
21-7-1998 does not refer to any partition. We
must also note here that though the Divisional
Commissioner has rejected the Deed of Family
Settlement on the ground that the same is not
registered, there is a clear finding of fact
recorded that there was no partition effected
by metes and bounds before 31-7-2000, which was
the cut-off date. Even going by the case of the
third petitioner in her application, effect to
the partition was given in the revenue records
in the year 2005.

¶27

sjs 902-WP-1713.2014

¶28

6.Therefore, the finding of fact that on
or before the cut-off date, there was no
partition by metes and bounds is fully
justified by the documents on record. No
interference can be made in the findings of
fact recorded by the Divisional Commissioner.
There is no merit in the petition and the same
is accordingly dismissed.

¶29

Page 5 of 5

Shri. Pramod Anandrao Rananavare and Ors. v. the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Pramod Anandrao Rananavare and Ors. v. the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune 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

Madan Bandopant Chodankar Vs the Divisional Cast Scrutiny Committee No. 2 and Ors.

Shri. Shantaram Yamaji Pujari Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Water Resources Dept and Ors.

Shri. Manohar Balisha Naik and Ors. Vs the Collector, Sangli and Ors.

Shripati Govind Gurav and Ors. Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Pravinkumar Chottalal Doshi Vs the Collector Satara and Ors.

Musa Kamalshah Murshad and Anr. Vs Narsayya Narayan Adam (Master) and Ors.