Dismissed

The State of Mah and Ors. v. Vishwambhar Limbaji Maske and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2023CRA/143/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision application concerned the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in a suit for perpetual injunction regarding a portion of land that was not acquired. The High Court found that since the dispute did not touch acquisition proceedings, the suit was maintainable, and the impugned order was not illegal. The application was accordingly dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The revision application was dismissed; rule discharged; applicants returned to the Joint Civil Judge.

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Vishwambhar Limbaji Maske and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

912-CRA-143-10.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.143 OF 2010

¶5

1.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur
2.	The Sub-Divisional Officer, Latur
3.	The Principal, Police Prashikshan Kendra Babhalgaon, Taluka and District Latur .. Versus	Applicants (Original Defendants)
1.	Vishwambhar s/o. Limbaji Maske, Age 70 years, Occu. Agri.
2.	Sou. Vishrantbai w/o. Vishwambhar Maske, Age 65 years, Occu. Household and Agri.
	Both R/o. Babhalgaon, Tq. and Dist. Latur ..	Respondents (Original Plaintiffs)
Mr. Mr.	A. B. Chate, A.G.P. for Applicants; T. M. Venjane, Advocate for Respondents

¶6

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J. DATE : 14-09-2023

¶7

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶8

Heard the learned A.G.P. for the applicants and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶9

The petitioners here were the defendants, and the respondents were the plaintiffs in the suit. The parties will be referred to by their original position.

¶10

912-CRA-143-10.odt

¶11

¶12

The plaintiffs had filed suit for perpetual injunction about the remaining land of 36 Guntha out of Gat No.29. Gat No.29 was 4 Hector 6 Guntha, out of it under the joint measurement dated 30.01.2006, land 2 Hector 85 R. was acquired. However, the defendants attempted to stop their construction over the remaining portion of the land, which was not acquired.

¶13

Defendants No.1 to 3 had raised an objection as regards the jurisdiction of the Court and the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue under Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, then in existence. Defendants No.1 to 3 relied on the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Land Acquisition Act and objected to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

¶14

The learned A.P.P. for the defendants submitted that the learned Court did not consider that once the land is acquired, the owner ceased the title. The acquiring body gets the right to develop the acquired land for the purpose for which it was acquired. In the dispute about the rights of the acquired property, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court ceases. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act have not been considered.

¶15

Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that they never impugned the acquisition proceeding. The suit was about the remaining portion of the land, out of the land which was acquired. The suit was only for the perpetual injunction.

¶16

3 912-CRA-143-10.odt

¶17

The averments in the plaint are the best source to determine the jurisdiction of the Court. The suit was for protecting the remaining land of 36 R. out of Gat No.29. Since the issue did not touch the acquisition proceedings, the learned Civil Judge correctly observed that the subject matter was not under the jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition authorities. Therefore, the suit was maintainable.

¶18

The Court did not find illegality committed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, in the impugned order. The present revision application is devoid of merits; hence, it stands dismissed.

¶19

R & P be returned to the Court of the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur.

¶20

Rule stands discharged.

¶21

( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE

¶22

rrd

The State of Mah and Ors. v. Vishwambhar Limbaji Maske and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah and Ors. v. Vishwambhar Limbaji Maske and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hiralal Prabhudas Paraswani and Others Vs Rekha Lalitkumar Rathi and Others

Hiralal Prabhudas Paraswani and Others Vs Rekha Lalitkumar Rathi and Others

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. through It S Executive Engineer, Nandurbar Vs Malik Aktar Bagwan

Anusayabai Eknath Bhingardive and Others. Vs Baburao Vitthal Darandale (L.Rs.)Matibai.

Gazi Mohammad Azaruddin Mohammad Shamsoddin Vs Wahajunnissabegam Mirzajabbarbeg

Gazi Mohammad Azaruddin Mohammad Shamsoddin Vs Wahajunnissabegam Mirzajabbarbeg