Dismissed

Deepa Shama Pawar and Others v. Roshanbee Shaikh Rahim Thr Lrs Shaikh Maheboob Shaikh Rahim Thr Lrs Sharifabee Shaikh Maheboob Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jan 2019WP/9086/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by subsequent land purchasers seeking to challenge a Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal order regarding tenancy was dismissed as not maintainable after their prior application to be brought on record in an abated petition was rejected.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without any substantive decision on the tenancy claim.

Deepa Shama Pawar and Others Vs Roshanbee Shaikh Rahim Thr… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

WP/9086/2018

¶2

1 of 3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.9086 OF 2018

¶5

DEEPA SHAMA PAWAR AND OTHERS VERSUS ROSHANBEE SHAIKH RAHIM THR LRS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioners : Shri Patil Ujwal Subhash

¶7

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. Dated: January 21, 2019

¶8

PER COURT :-

¶9

These petitioners are aggrieved by the order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ('MRT") dated 21.9.1990.

¶10

The sequence of events are narrated as under:-

¶11

(a) RCS No.138 of 1979 is still pending before the trial Court at Beed.

¶12

(b) These petitioners are subsequent purchasers of the land having purchased it from the original defendants 1 to 3

¶13

¶14

(d) The Additional Tahsildar Beed passed an order on 10.7.1987.

¶15

(e) The Dy. Collector, Land Reforms, Beed passed an order on

WP/9086/2018

2 of 3

24.6.1988.

(f) Case No.95/Beed/88 was filed by the original applicants, which was decided on 21.9.1990 by the M.R.T.

¶20

(g) Writ Petition No.548 of 1992 was preferred by the defendants since the order dated 21.9.1990 was against them. This Court admitted the petition. The said petition was dismissed as abated by order dated 20.6.2013 by this Court, due to the demise of the original litigants.

¶21

(h) The original plaintiffs filed Exhibit 38, as the petitioners had purchased the land from the original defendants, seeking leave to add them as defendants in RCS No.138 of 1979.

¶22

(i) By order dated 6.10.2016, the trial Court allowed the said addition and these petitioners became the defendants.

¶23

(j) These petitioners then moved Civil Application No.3378 of 2017 in Writ Petition No.548 of 1992, seeking restoration of the petition. By order dated 15.9.2017, this Court ( Coram : N.W.Sambre, J.), rejected the civil application.

¶24

The contention of the petitioners is that they have purchased the land at issue during the pendency of the litigation by the sale deeds, mostly executed in 1996, 1997 and one in 2010. They, therefore, have a right to challenge the order of the MRT dated 21.9.1990.

¶25

It is obvious that as these petitioners are purchasers of the land which was subject matter of the pending litigation. Their rights would

¶26

WP/9086/2018

¶27

3 of 3

¶28

be akin to the rights of their vendors. They had approached this Court by filing Civil Application No.3378 of 2017, in which, it was specifically contended that they have stepped into the shoes of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.548 of 1992 and they be permitted to be brought on record in the said petition which is dismissed as abated and they be permitted to work out the said petition. These prayers were specifically refused by this Court (Coram : N.W.Sambre, J.), by order dated 15.9.2017 and they were granted liberty to take steps as are permissible in law. Since specific prayers and requests made in the civil application, which were aimed at assailing the order of the MRT dated 21.9.1990, had been rejected by this Court, a second petition for challenging the said order claiming to be purchasers pendent lite, cannot be entertained.

¶29

This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Needless to state, as these petitioners have been arrayed as defendants in RCS No.138 of 1979, they are at liberty to canvass their respective cases in the said suit. As the said suit is pending from 1979, the trial Court is directed to decide the said suit on/or before 30.4.2019 and the matter should be conducted by the trial Court on day to day basis. Adjournments would be refused by the trial Court.

¶30

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...

¶31

akl/d

Deepa Shama Pawar and Others v. Roshanbee Shaikh Rahim Thr Lrs Shaikh Maheboob Shaikh Rahim Thr Lrs Sharifabee Shaikh Maheboob Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepa Shama Pawar and Others v. Roshanbee Shaikh Rahim Thr Lrs Shaikh Maheboob Shaikh Rahim Thr Lrs Sharifabee Shaikh Maheboob Ors.

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

Babasaheb Vishwambharrao Deshmukh and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pradip Bhaskar Patil and Another Vs Bhaskar Bhadu Patil and Others

Santosh Ganpatrao Bankar and Another Vs the Divisional Joint Registrar Co. Operative Societies Aurangabad and Others

Girdharilal Hiralalji Agrawal Vs Kishanprasad Motilal Devidan and Another

Jaypalsing Devising Rawal and Another Vs the Collector Dhule and Others

Aaba Abhiman Patil Vs the Sub Divisional Officer Amalner and Others