Petitioner challenged land acquisition notices and award claiming oral agreement of sale and possession. Court rejected writ petition noting prior Civil Court judgment decided title and possession against Petitioner with no stay, rendering writ unnecessary.
Writ Petition rejected.
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
0803wp8085 of 2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.8085 OF 2019 Pandhari s/o Sadabarao Maske
Versus State of Maharashtra and others
Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order
Mr. S.D. Chande, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Amit Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. R.N. Ghuge, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 9.
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATE : 8 MARCH 2021
P.C.:
By this Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the notices issued by the Respondent No.2- Sub-Divisional Officer, Washim, dated 20 November 2019, the order passed by the Respondent No.1- Collector, Washim, dated 19 July 2018, and the award passed by the Respondent No.2- Land Acquisition Officer dated 18 September 2019 in respect of Gat No.202 situated at Mouza Wai, Tq. and Distt. Washim.
2
0803wp8085 of 2019.odt
the Petitioner entered into an oral agreement of sale in the year 2004 with one deceased Gyanuji Mhaske. It is placed on record that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land Gat No.202 were initiated. The Petitioner claimed interest in respect of Gat No.202, which was rejected by the Respondent No.2Sub-Divisional Officer by an order dated 19 July 2018. Thereafter, an award was passed in terms of the agreement on 18 September 2019 and the Petitioner has filed this Petition on 6 December 2019.
3
0803wp8085 of 2019.odt
framed regarding the claim of the Petitioner for ownership and possession. The counter-claim was filed by the Petitioner and the issue was framed as to whether the Petitioner is cultivating the suit land since prior to 30 to 35 years on Batai basis. The Civil Court rendered a positive finding in respect of the Respondent Nos.4 to 9 for title and possession and negatived the contention of the Petitioner of being in possession. The Civil Court had already declared that the Petitioner was not in possession of suit land since prior to 30 to 35 years on Batai basis. The claim of the Petitioner of having purchased the property through oral agreement was also taken note of and was not accepted. Therefore, both the points, of title and possession of the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos.4 to 9, were agitated in Civil Court and held against the Petitioner. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court is pending; however, there is no stay on the declaration regarding title and possession. In these circumstances, there is no necessity to issue any writ, as sought by the Petitioner, as his substantive rights have already been adjudicated and held against him.
(ANIL S. KILOR, J) (NITIN JAMDAR, J)
Lanjewar
Prashant Lanjewar
Digitally signed by Prashant Lanjewar Date: 2021.03.10 17:48:35 +0530
2 issues framed by the court
Whether authorities are duty bound to make reference under Section 64 when petitioner claims to be a person interested despite prior negative finding in civil suit regarding possession and title.
Whether Civil Court judgment declaring petitioner not in possession of land bars necessity of issuing writ in land acquisition proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pandhari s/o Sadabarao Maske
State of Maharashtra
Nitin Jamdar
Anil S. Kilor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
