Allowed

Syed Hidayat Sayed Lal Jagirdar v. Manjoorkha Iqbalkha Jamadar and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jul 2014WP/6024/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, quashed revenue orders permitting mutation of land sold in violation of a civil court partition decree's injunction. The matter was remitted to the Tahsildar for a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

The revenue orders quashed and set aside; matter remitted to Tahsildar, Udgir to pass a fresh speaking order.

Syed Hidayat Sayed Lal Jagirdar Vs Manjoorkha Iqbalkha Jamadar and… — Partition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

W.P.No.6024/2012

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.6024 OF 2012

¶5

Syed Hidayat Sayed Lal Jagirdar Age 54 years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o Vikas Nagar, Degloor Road, Udgir, Taluka Udgir, Dist.Latur .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Manjoorkha s/o Iqbalkha Jamadar, Age 34 years, Occu.Business

¶8

Yahiyakha s/o Iqbalkha Jamadar, Age 32 years, Occu.Business, Both R/o Deoni, Taluka Deoni, District Latur

¶9

The Tahsildar, Udgir, Taluka Udgir, District Latur

¶10

Mr Pandit Jadhav, Talathi, Nideban Sajja, Taluka Udgir, Dist.Latur

¶11

Smt.Baligunnisa Begum w/o Mohd.Samiuddin Choudhari, Age 52 years, Occu.Household, R/o Galli No.11 Bari Colony, Aurangabad .. Respondents

¶12

Mr Ram S. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner Mr E.S.Murge, Advocate h/f Mr A.S.Bayas, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2

¶13

Mr M.S. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.5 - intervenor

¶14

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

¶15

DATE : 21st July 2014

W.P.No.6024/2012

PER COURT

Heard finally with the consent of parties.

¶20

Petitioner claiming to be owner of land Survey No.6/1 admeasuring 13-R has questioned the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad on May 7, 2012 in Revision Application No.ROR/REV/498/2011.

¶21

By the order impugned, the revision petition filed by the present petitioner questioning the mutation of the suit property came to be dismissed.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is, the suit was filed by one Balligunisa who is sister of the petitioner, for partition and separate possession bearing Regular Civil Suit No.248/1987. The said suit came to be decreed by the judgment and decree dated 7^th November 2003. The operative part of the said decree reads thus:

¶23

“ That, suit is hereby partly decreed as under :

¶24

That, plaintiff be put in khas possession to the extent of 1/10^th share in respect of following properties by effecting partition.

¶25

W.P.No.6024/2012

¶26

¶27

Serial No.	Area	L.R.	Location
166/1	1H.09R	1-71	Udgir
231/3	0H.86R	3-64	Udgir
406/2	0H.51R	1-28	Udgir
6/1	12 A. 33 gts.	23-14	Nideban

¶28

That, defendants are hereby restrained from alienating suit properties till effecting partition.

¶29

That, preliminary decree drawn accordingly and issue to Collector, Latur for effecting partition.

¶30

No order as to costs.”

¶31

The property about which the order was passed in revision, and questioned in the petition is also included in the said decree. Injunction is operating since 17^th November 2003 as regards transfer of property.

¶32

Contrary to the injunction, the property in question appears to have been sold by the brother of the petitioner to respondents 1 and 2 who got their names mutated through the revenue authorities on the basis of registered sale deed.

¶33

W.P.No.6024/2012

¶34

¶35

The said mutation entry was objected before the Tahsildar, Udgir, Sub Divisional Officer, Udgir, Additional Collector, Aurangabad and Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, however, the petitioner remained unsuccessful.

¶36

The order of the revisional authority is questioned on the ground that in spite of order passed by the civil Court, suit property came to be transferred in favour of respondents 1 and 2 and the revenue authorities proceeded to permit the mutation in their name.

¶37

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the above referred act on the part of the brother of the petitioner selling property contrary to the injunction ordered in the decree amounts to breach of the orders passed by the civil Court. In view of above, petitioner prayed for quashing the order passed by the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad.

¶38

While countering the above referred submissions, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 who have purchased the property, which is part of the suit has opposed the above submissions on the ground that they are bona fide purchasers of the property, even if they are closely related with the brother of the petitioner from whom they have purchased the said property for valuable consideration. He submits that the order of injunction

¶39

W.P.No.6024/2012

¶40

¶41

passed by civil Court while passing the decree at page 29 of the record book, is equally binding on all the parties and in fact, it is the petitioner who has assailed the said order, as such prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶42

Having considered rival contentions of the parties, it is noticed that the civil Court has dealt with R.C.S.No.248/1987 deterring the claims of the brother and sister in respect of the suit property, which is reproduced hereinabove.

¶43

Though preliminary decree was passed by learned Judge of the trial Court ordering partition and separate possession, the Collector is yet to effect partition and hand over possession of the property to the parties to the suit by meets and bounds.

¶44

The fact is also required to be taken note of that there operates injunction against all the parties to the suit since November 2003.

¶45

In spite of the said injunction from selling the suit property, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 who are closely related to the brother of the petitioner – Syed Haji Syed Lal, who is defendant No.2 to the suit has purchased the same in defiance to the order of injunction and purchased by the respondents 1 and 2 to the petition.

¶46

W.P.No.6024/2012

¶47

¶48

As the sale transaction between respondent Nos.1 and 2 with that of defendant No.2 to the suit is in defiance to injunction ordered in the R.C.S.No.248/1987, the order passed by Tahsildar, Udgir dated 25^th November 2010 in Case No.2010/ROR/CR-25, the order dated 22^th August 2011 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Udgir in Case No.2010/ROR/A-170 and the order dated 7^th December 2011 passed by the Additional Collector, Latur in Case No.2011/ROR/A/116 and the order impugned dated 7^th May 2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad in Case No.ROR/498/2011, are not sustainable and are quashed and set aside.

¶49

The matter is remitted to the Tahsildar, Udgir to hear the petitioner and other parties to the suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.248/1987 and to pass a fresh speaking order keeping in mind the decree for partition passed in Regular Civil Suit No.248/1987 and injunction order.

¶50

Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶51

( N.W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶52

(vvr/6024.12wp)

Syed Hidayat Sayed Lal Jagirdar v. Manjoorkha Iqbalkha Jamadar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Hidayat Sayed Lal Jagirdar v. Manjoorkha Iqbalkha Jamadar 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

Trimbak Rangrao Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sambhaji Krushna Mane Died Lrs Chaturabai and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sambhaji Krushna Mane Died Lrs Chaturabai and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Social and Cultural Association at Kusumba and Another Vs Chandrakant Mahadu Chaudhari

Syed Hidayat Sayed Lal Jagirdar Vs Manjoorkha Iqbalkha Jamadar and Others

Usman Baig Hussain Baig and Others Vs Shaikh Nizam Shaikh Jainoddin and Another