Partly allowed

Subhash Pandurang Mole and Ors. v. Government of Maharashtra through Collector and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Nov 2024WP/16686/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an appellate order regarding land dispute over shop locations. Court stayed de-sealing direction, directed notice to unaffected respondent, and restrained disturbance of remaining shops possession.

What did the court decide?

AGP instructed Respondents 1-5 not to disturb possession of remaining 9 shops; notice to issue to Respondent 6; de-sealing subject to detailed hearing.

Subhash Pandurang Mole and Ors. vs Government of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

15-WP-16686-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR

¶4

Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2024.11.22 19:22:14 +0530

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.16686 OF 2024

¶6

Shri.Subhash Pandurang Mole and Ors. ...Petitioners

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Government of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Kolhapur District, Kolhapur and Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

*****

¶10

Mr.Sandeep Koregave a/w Advocates for Petitioners. Ms.Pallavi Karanjkar:Ms.Vaishali Nimbalkar : AGP:- On behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 18^th NOVEMBER 2024

¶13

P. C. :-

¶14

Heard learned Advocate for Petitioners-Plaintiffs and learned

¶15

AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶16

The Respondent No.6 is Devasthan / Owner. There is a dispute about location of these 12 Shops. According to the Plaintiffs, they were constructed on the land bearing Survey No.249. Whereas, the Revenue Authorities contend that in fact, they were constructed on land bearing Survey No.253 which is owned by the Devasthan.

Satish Sangar

1/2

15-WP-16686-2024.doc

During pendency of the Suit, the trial Court granted two sorts of interim reliefs. First, they restrained Defendant Nos.1 to 5 from disturbing the possession of those Shops till disposal of the Suit. Second, they directed the Defendants to de-seal Shop Nos.1 to 9.

¶21

In the meantime, 3 Shops were demolished. The Appellate Court as per the order dated 24^th October 2024 has set aside the order passed

¶22

on 16^th December 2023. That is why, this Writ Petition. The Appellate Court directed Defendant No.3 not to take any action till 15^th November 2024. That is why, this urgency.

¶23

Yet, notice is not issued to Defendant No.6. Issue notice before admission to Defendant No.6. The order of de-seal was stayed by the Appellate Court during pendency of the Appeal. Today, there cannot .

¶24

be any order about de-sealing unless the parties are heard in detail

¶25

So far as the temporary prohibitory injunction is concerned, learned AGP to give instructions to Defendant Nos.1 to 5 not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the remaining 9 Shops of the Plaintiff till next date.

¶26

Stand over to 18^th December 2024 .

¶27

Satish Sangar

¶28

2/2

Subhash Pandurang Mole and Ors. v. Government of Maharashtra through Collector and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Pandurang Mole and Ors. v. Government of Maharashtra through Collector and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mr. Bhupendra Onkarrao Lohkpure and Another vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another

Swacchanad Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Majiwade V.V.C.H.S. Ltd. and Anr. vs Nanda Balasaheb Shinde and Ors.

Suresh Kumar Pathak vs Union of India, Thr. Army Area Commandant and Another

Shri.Santosh Mahadeo Aldar Vs Ravindar Yashwantrao Deshmukh

Laxman Eknath Dodke vs Kushal Subayya Hegde

Sujita Narayan Nakhwa and Ors. vs Unique Constructions Thr Its Proprietor Mr Ravindra Baburao Patil