Dismissed

Syed Haji Rahematullah Alahe Dargah Trust, through Its President, Yunus Khan S/O Harun Khan v. State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Akola and 2 Others

Bombay HC1 Apr 2014WP/838/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order dismissed a writ petition filed by a Trust challenging a Trial Court's order joining an intervenor-Association as defendants in a civil suit over property. The court noted the dispute involved state-owned land and distinguished a cited precedent as irrelevant.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the order joining the intervenor-Association as a defendant is dismissed.

Syed Haji Rahematullah Alahe Dargah Trust… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

0104wp838.14.odt

¶3

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

¶4

Writ Petition No.838 of 2014

¶5

(Syed Haji Rahematullah Alahe Dargah Trust, Akola, through its President v. State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Akola, and others)

¶6

Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order

¶7

Shri V.P. Panpalia, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶8

Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 1st April, 2014

¶9

Undisputedly, the property in question belongs to the State Government. The petitioner, who is the original plaintiff, has filed the suit claiming the following reliefs :

¶10

“It is therefore, most humbly prayed that, suit of plaintiff may kindly be decreed with costs, and :-

¶11

i) A decree for declaration may kindly be passed in favour of plaintiff and thereby declared that, the plaintiff is become the owner of the suit land on the basis of adverse possession and he having first right over it;

¶12

ii) A decree for permanent injunction may kindly be granted in favour of plaintiff by restraining the defendants, by restraining them to disturb and obstruct

¶13

¶14

0104wp838.14.odt

¶15

the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the property through themselves, their servants, subordinates, employees, etc.

¶16

iii) A decree for permanent injunction may also be passed, restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest on the suit property and by transferring it to other person by any mode and manner.

¶17

iv) A decree for mandatory injunction may also be passed with direction to defendants to mutate the suit property in the name of plff. as an owners thereof.

¶18

v) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may kindly be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, in the interest of justice.”

¶19

An application at Exhibit 113 has been filed in Regular Civil Suit No.365 of 2009 by the Old Grain Market Sindhi Shopkeeper Association, Akola, alleging that the suit property is reserved for rehabilitation of the members of the intervenorAssociation in the development plan. Shri Panpalia, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that it is not reserved for the intervenor-Association, but admits that it is reserved for the shopping complex.

¶20

In Writ Petition No.1251 of 2007 decided by this Court on 29-9-2009, which was filed by the intervenors, this Court had

¶21

¶22

0104wp838.14.odt

¶23

directed the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to proceed further to take possession of the site in question and to consider the claim of the members of the intervenor-Association for rehabilitation in accordance with law. In view of this, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court allowing the application at Exhibit 113, directing the intervenor-Association to be joined as the defendants in the suit.

¶24

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Shyam Fatechand Shende and another v. Alka w/o Vinod Ganvir and another, reported in 1998(1) Mh.L.J. 410. The said decision turns upon its own facts and the same is not relevant for the purposes of deciding the question involved in the present petition.

¶25

The petition is dismissed.

¶26

Judge

¶27

PDL

Syed Haji Rahematullah Alahe Dargah Trust, through Its President, Yunus Khan S/O Harun Khan v. State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Akola and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Haji Rahematullah Alahe Dargah Trust, through Its President, Yunus Khan S/O Harun Khan v. State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Akola and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vidarbha Beweragies Mazdoor Union, Nagpur Vs Vidarbha Liquor Corporation, Nagpur

Niraj S/O Hiralal Yadav Vs the Collector, Nagpur and 2 Others

Rohidas Raidas Rathod Vs Additional Commissioner, Amravati and Ors.

G.K. Khapre Vidyalaya, through Its Administrator, Thugaon Pimpri and Another Vs Angad Natthuji Taide and Another

Omiya Saw Mill Akot, through Its Partner, Shri Devsi Karsan Patel Vs Shamsundar Mulimanohar Shrawgi and Others

Narayan Bhikhaji Charkhe Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and 3 Others