Dismissed

Mohammed Abdul Kareem Shaikh Jeelani v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2014WP/2467/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition claiming Inam Land dismissed. Court held it cannot adjudicate disputed factual questions regarding land title and held Civil Court is the competent forum. Petition disposed of without expressing opinion on maintainability.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is not entertained as it involves disputed questions of fact regarding land title.

Mohammed Abdul Kareem Shaikh Jeelani Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

{1}

¶2

2467.11 wp.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2467 OF 2011

¶5

Mohammed Abdul Kareem s/o. Shaikh Jeelani

¶6

Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶9

Respondent/s

¶10

Mr. S.V. Chandole, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.G. Karlekar, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to
4.

¶11

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. DATE : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2014.

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

1]Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶14

2]The request of the petitioner in this
petition is, to direct the Collector, Latur to take
cognizance and decide application dated 15th April,
2010. This application was filed by the petitioner in
respect of land and claiming the same to be Inam Land.

¶15

3]An affidavit in reply has been filed, on
behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, in which it has been
clarified that, by virtue of the provisions contained
in the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants

¶16

{2}

¶17

2467.11 wp.odt

¶18

Act, 1954, the present land cannot be said to be
covered by the exceptions contained in the said Act.
The Inam, therefore, stands abolished. The suit land,
therefore, cannot be termed as Inam Land and if
anybody is dealing with said land contrary to the
claim of the petitioner or violating any of the rights
of the petitioner herein, then, remedy of the
petitioner is to challenge the such deal or
transaction, by approaching the competent Civil Court.

¶19

4]In the light of this statement made and
clarification given by respondent Nos. 2 to 4, we are
of the opinion that the writ petition should not be
entertained. This court cannot go into disputed
questions of fact, in relation to right, title and
interest in an immovable property. If the land ceases
to be an Inam Land, the petitioners must approach a
competent civil court and seek declaration and
ancillary reliefs.

¶20

5]Keeping that remedy open and all contentions
therein, this writ petition is disposed of. We clarify
that, we have not expressed any opinion on the point
of maintainability of the suit and merits of the claim
of the petitioners.

¶21

[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE][S.C. DHARMADHIKARI]
 JUDGEJUDGE.

¶22

grt/-

Mohammed Abdul Kareem Shaikh Jeelani v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Abdul Kareem Shaikh Jeelani v. the State of Maharashtra 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

The Fishermans Co-Operati E Society Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vithalrao Genba Mete Vs Basavraj Shivaling Jibkate and Others

Mahesh Tukaram Bharshankar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shivaji Govardhan Shinde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hamed Abdulla Bajaman and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Andors

Chandrakalabai Trimbak Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.