Dismissed

Gajendra Ganpat Ghongade v. Kishor Deshmukh

Bombay HC24 Sept 2018CP/467/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Tahsildar's decision to decline a property grievance due to a pending civil suit as a violation of a court order. The High Court held the Tahsildar acted correctly by deferring to the civil court and found no willful disobedience or contempt.

What did the court decide?

Contempt purged; petition disposed of by dismissing the petitioner's grievance against the Tahsildar's decision.

Gajendra Ganpat Ghongade Vs Kishor Deshmukh — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

467.17cp

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 467 OF 2017 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 7947 OF 2016

¶6

Gajendra s/o Ganpat Ghongade,
Age: 85 years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o Shankar Nagar, Post Patoda
Khurd, Tq. Mantha,
Dist. Jalna..PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Rahul Gaikwad,
Age:45 years, Occu: Service,
Serving as Tahsildar,
Mantha, Tq. Mantha,
R/o Mantha, Tq. Mantha,
District Jalna..RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr Mahesh P. Kale, Advocate for petitioner;
Mrs A. V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent;

¶10

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
 MANISH PITALE,JJ.

¶11

 DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2018

¶12

ORAL ORDER :

¶13

Heard Mr Kale, learned Counsel appearing

¶14

on behalf of the petitioner.

¶15

2.The grievance of the petitioner is that

¶16

though by order dated 11th August, 2016, Tahsildar

¶17

467.17cp (2)

¶18

was directed to decide the representation of the
petitioner, the decision of the Tahsildar is not in
consonance with the order of this Court. Perusal
of the order of this Court dated 11th August, 2016
shows that the petitioner was permitted to submit
the report/complaint to the Tahsildar for redressal
of his grievance within a stipulated period of four
weeks from the date of the order and on receipt of
the said representation the Tahsildar was to decide
it and pass appropriate order within a period of
four weeks.

¶19

3.Reply is filed on behalf of Tahsildar Mr
Kishor Awachitrao Deshmukh. The copy of the
decision of Tahsildar dated 6th May, 2017 is also
placed on record along with affidavit-in-reply. The

¶20

Tahsildar states in the order that the
representation was received by him and the
petitioner claims right over certain property which
is situated in the village Patoda and more
particularly in Survey No.117/4. The Tahsildar
then states in the decision that already civil suit

¶21

467.17cp

¶22

(3)

¶23

is pending before the competent civil Court in
respect of the very property and contesting claims
are raised by the petitioner as well as one Smt.
Bibi Durkhan Mahobat Khan. It is then stated that

¶24

as the competent civil Court seized with the

¶25

matter, the Tahsildar is unable to show any

¶26

indulgence in the matter and accordingly, it is
informed to the petitioner.

¶27

petitioner though submitted that the decision is
not in consonance of the order of this Court, we

¶28

are of the opinion that no error is committed by
the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar, by referring to the
fact that the issue about civil rights of the
parties is pending before the competent civil Court
and it is only the civil Court, who shall decide
the rights of the property and in such situation,

¶29

the Tahsildar has no role to play, as such, he is
unable to entertain the grievance of the
petitioner.

¶30

467.17cp (4)

¶31

5.The view taken by the Tahsildar and the
decision is in view of the record available with
him. In our opinion, no error is committed by the
Tahsildar. There is also no willful disobedience
of the order of this Court.

¶32

6.Considering the above referred facts, the
contempt is purged and the petition is disposed of
accordingly.

¶33

(MANISH PITALE)(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
JUDGE JUDGE

¶34

Tupe

Gajendra Ganpat Ghongade v. Kishor Deshmukh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajendra Ganpat Ghongade v. Kishor Deshmukh

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

Chunnilal Popatlal Patel (Died) Thr Lrs Deepak and Anr. Vs Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth Parbhani Thr Its Registrar and Anr.

Umakant Hanmant Damargide Vs Nitin Gulabrao Kapadnis

Kevalabai Narsing Udekar Vs Nitin Gulabrao Kapadnis

Kammri Omkar Ramchandraiah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vijay Ramrao Patait and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prashant Ashokrao Popsethwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others