Petitioner sought restoration of agricultural land transferred before 1957. Court observed the petitioner suppressed material facts regarding the title transfer and dismissed the writ petition without costs.
Petition dismissed and rule discharged; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1)W.P. No. 2223 of 1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Writ Petition No. 2223 of 1999
District : Nanded
Pandu s/o. Malku Shedmake,
Age : 40 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Hirapur, Post Kothari,
Taluka Kinwat,
District Nanded. .. Petitioner.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra.
2. The Tahsildar, Kinwat, District Nanded.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nanded.
4. The Collector, Nanded.
5. Gangadhar s/o. Shivanna Bhandarwar, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Kothari, Taluka Kinwat.
6. Kundlik s/o. Laxman Wadgore, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. as above.
7. Naganna s/o. Shivanna Jakkulwar, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. as above.
8. Tukaram s/o. Pandurang Wadgore, Age : 25 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. as above. .. Respondents.
(2)W.P. No. 2223 of 1999
...........
Mr. P.P. Mandlik, Advocate, instructed by Mr. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, Addl. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01 to 04.
Mr. G.R. Syed, Advocate, holding for Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate, for respondent no.05.
Respondent no.08 served (Absent).
...........
CORAM : V.M. KANADE &
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 04TH JANUARY 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per V.M. Kanade, J.) :
Heard the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner.
02.By this petition which is filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner is seeking following reliefs :-
(A) Rule be issued;
(B) Writ Petition be allowed with costs;
(i) The respondent nos.1 to 4 may be directed to restore the suit land to the petitioner from the respondent nos.5 to 8 i.e. land S.R.No.300, Gat No.326, 328, 329, 330, situated at village Hirapur, Post Kothari, Taluka Kinwat;
(ii) The transfer / alienation of suit land Sr.No.300, Gat No.326, 328, 329, 330, in favour of respondent no.5 to 8 is illegal;
(3)W.P. No. 2223 of 1999
(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the respondent nos.5 to 8 may be restrained by an order of injunction not to alienate or transfer the suit land in favour of any other person and not to make third party interest in the suit land Sr.No.300, Gat No.326, 328, 329, 330 of Hirapur, Taluka Kinwat.
(D) Other suitable orders may be passed; OR
In the alternatively,
(a) The respondent nos.1 to 4 may be directed to consider and decide the application Exh.'A' filed by the petitioner by initiating the appropriate proceedings for restoration of the land to the Tribal/petitioner under the provisions of the relevant laws.
03.The grievance of the petitioner is that the
application filed by him was closed on the ground
that the land allegedly belonging to the petitioner
was transferred prior to 01.04.1957 and, therefore,
he was not entitled for possession of the said land.
It is submitted that the direction be given to
reconsider his application on merits.
04.Respondent nos.05 to 07 have filed their
reply. Perusal of the said reply clearly discloses
that against the said order, the petitioner has filed
an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, who
after giving hearing to both the parties, confirmed
the order passed by the Addl. Tahsildar. Secondly,
it is stated in the affidavit that one Malku Bhima
had also filed a Civil Suit bearing No.41/67 against
one Shekhar Reddy and others for declaration of
ownership. The said suit was also dismissed for want
of prosecution. It is submitted that the petitioner
is claiming through his father Malku Shedmake whose
(4)W.P. No. 2223 of 1999
claim was also rejected by the competent authority.
05.We are satisfied that the petitioner has
approached this Court by suppressing material facts
and, therefore, cannot seek any relief from this
Court. There is no merit in the submission of the
learned Counsel for the petitioner.
06.The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule
discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Sangitrao S. Patil ) ( V.M. Kanade )
JUDGE JUDGE
...........
puranik / WP2223.99
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner approached the Court by suppressing material facts regarding the transfer of land prior to 01.04.1957.
Pandu s/o. Malku Shedmake
The State of Maharashtra
The Tahsildar, Kinwat
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nanded
The Collector, Nanded
Gangadhar s/o. Shivanna Bhandarwar
V.M. Kanade
Sangitrao S. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court