Disposed

Mohammad Amir Hamja Mulla and Another v. the Additional Collector Osmanabad and Others

Bombay HC12 Dec 2018WP/7324/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order by the Additional Collector. The court held that since a civil suit challenging the same Tahsildar order and seeking injunction is pending, the writ petition need not be entertained separately. The existing ad-interim order is extended for four weeks but clarified that no further relief in the civil suit will be influenced by this order. Contentions are kept open

What did the court decide?

The ad-interim order staying the implementation of the order dated 7 March 2017 is extended for four weeks; the writ petition is disposed of.

Mohammad Amir Hamja Mulla and Another Vs the Additional… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2018)

wp7324.18

rlj

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7324 OF 2018

¶6

MOHAMMAD AMIR HAMJA MULLA AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OSMANABAD AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Patil Laxmikant C.
AGP for Respondents 1 and 2: Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar
Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. S.N. Patne

¶8

CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J.
 DATED : 12 DECEMBER 2018

¶9

PER COURT:-

¶10

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

2.Te petitioners have challenged the order passed by the
Additional Collector, Osmanabad rejecting the revision application
filed by the petitioner and confirming the order passed by the
Tahsildar dated 7 March 2017. Learned counsel for the respondents
has drawn my attention to averments made in para 8 of the petition,
which reads thus:-

¶12

“8.Te petitioner says and submit that, the petitioner and
respondent No.4 has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 245 of 2017
before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Omerga
thereby seeking permanent injunction against the

¶13

rlj wp7324.18

¶14

Respondent No.3 as there is no any cart way available to him
to cultivate land Gat No. 929 and also challenging the
judgment and order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the learned
Tahsildar, Omerga which is pending for adjudication as the
present respondent Nos. 3 not appearing in the said suit.”

¶15

From this averment it is clear that the petitioner has approached the
civil court challenging the very same order of the Tahsildar and also
sought an injunction.

¶16

3.Te learned counsel for the respondents states that he has not
yet been served with a notice of the suit. Since the parties have
already approached the civil court in respect of easementary and
other rights, it is not necessary to keep this petition pending.

¶17

4.At the time of issuance of notice in this petition on 10 July
2018, this Court has granted an exparte ad-interim order. Te said
ad-interim order is to the effect of staying the implementation of the
order dated 7 March 2017 passed by the Tahsildar.

¶18

5. Since I am not entertaining this writ petition on the ground that a civil suit is pending, the position which is being operating in this petition since 10 July 2018 will have to be continued for some time. It is however, thereafter the petitioner will seek necessary relief in the pending civil suit.

¶19

rlj wp7324.18 -3-

¶20

6.Accordingly, the ad-interim order granted in this petition to
continue for a period of four weeks from today. It is made clear that
any further protection in favour of the petitioner in the civil suit will
be strictly on its own merits without being influenced by the ad-
interim order that is operating in this petition. Te writ petition is
accordingly disposed of.

¶21

7. All contentions of the parties are kept open in the pending civil suit filed by the petitioner.

¶22

8.Te parties will appear before the civil court where the suit is
filed by the petitioner on 20 December 2018.

¶23

rlj/

Mohammad Amir Hamja Mulla and Another v. the Additional Collector Osmanabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Amir Hamja Mulla and Another v. the Additional Collector Osmanabad 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

Roman Chatholic Church Mission Trust Bidkin through Rev Fr Wilfred Saldhana Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S R Rajkotiya and Company through Partners Rajesh Chandulal Rajkotiya and Another Vs Omprakash Sitaram Agrawal and Others

Adinath Rabhaji Honde Vs Sonali Suresh Waghmare and Others

Mohan Annasaheb Deshmukh Vs Shrimati Parwtibai Vitthalrao Ingale and Othres

Rakshitkumar Shivajirao Aher Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Padmaja Pandit Thakur and Others Vs Sapan Sushilkumar Zunzunwala