Dismissed

Vishnu Martand Barate L.Rs Shardabai Ganpat Andhale and Others v. Shrihari Prabhakarrao Deshmukh and Others

Bombay HC23 Jan 2014WP/719/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a writ petition challenging mutation entries and seeking stay, the single judge held that no executable order existed against the petitioners or an order in their favour. Consequently, the apprehension of loss of possession was misplaced, rendering the exercise of stay powers unnecessary. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application for stay rejected; writ petition dismissed with liberty to move appropriate court for possession protection if disturbed.

Vishnu Martand Barate L.Rs Shardabai Ganpat Andhale and… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 wp 719.14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 719 OF 2014

¶4

Vishnu Martand Barate Died through L.Rs. Shardabai Ganpat Andhale and others .. Petitioners

¶5

Versus Shrihari Prabhakarrao Deshmukh and others .. Respondents

¶6

Shri M. R. Andhale, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶7

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 23RD JANUARY, 2014.

¶8

PER COURT :

¶9

. The application for stay in pending revision is rejected. Mr. Andhale, the learned counsel submits that, pursuant to the judgment of Collector, the respondents have altered the mutation entries in the revenue record. The possession of petitioners needs to be protected. The M. R. T. has got powers to grant stay. The said aspect has not been considered by the M. R. T. According to the learned counsel the M. R. T. has wrongly observed that it has no power to grant relief U/Sec. 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The M. R. T. who is dealing with the matter is having every power to pass appropriate order

¶10

2 wp 719.14

¶11

to safeguard the property. According to the learned counsel, even the M. R. T. has powers under the Mamlatdars Court Act. All these aspects have not been considered by the Court. The respondents are taking undue advantage of the order of the Additional Collector, which is subjudice in revision.

¶12

There is no executable order passed against the petitioners. The application of petitioners for declaration as tenant was allowed. The Additional Collector has reversed the said judgment and against that revision is pending. The relief sought was declaratory in nature. The said declaration is set aside. As there is no executable order no question of exercise of powers of stay arises. When there is no order in favour of respondents for taking possession, the apprehension of petitioners in respect of possession is misplaced.

¶13

If the petitioners have any apprehension with regard to disturbance of possession, if the petitioners are in possession, then the petitioners are at liberty to move to appropriate Court in this regard. The writ petition as such is dismissed. No costs.

¶14

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶15

bsb/Jan. 14

Vishnu Martand Barate L.Rs Shardabai Ganpat Andhale and Others v. Shrihari Prabhakarrao Deshmukh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Martand Barate L.Rs Shardabai Ganpat Andhale and Others v. Shrihari Prabhakarrao Deshmukh and Others

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

Sandipan Haribhau Chothave Vs M/S Pratik Construction and Others

Tanhubai Kedu Sangale Vs Vimal Sunil Dongre and Another

Baban Balanna Gawali and Others Vs Banarasi Mahadev Lagad and Others

Dattatraya Shankar Kadam Vs Fayyaz Ahmed Hakim and Others

Hemlata Tanaji Thingale Vs the President, Anil Mahadu Chaudhari and Others

Shaikh Dilawar Shaikh Liyakat Ali and Others Vs Sanjay Ashruba Rasal