Dismissed

Shivappa Shankar Gidd and Ors. v. Rukhmini Balkrishna Khebude and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jan 2024WP/5263/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by original defendants challenging orders under section 85 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code executing a partition decree. Objection to allotment of Gat No. 1062 was raised for the first time despite concurrent approval of orders up to the State Government; the partition decree was unchallenged and final. Petition dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shivappa Shankar Gidd and Ors. Vs Rukhmini Balkrishna Khebude and… — Partition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA VIJAY VIJAY RAJGURU RAJGURU Date:2024.01.23 11:04:39 +0530

¶2

37-wp-5263-2017.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5263 OF 2017

¶5

Shivappa Shankar Gidd and Ors … Petitioners

¶6

vs.

¶7

Rukhmini Balkrishna Khebude and Ors … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Prasad B. Kulkarni, for petitioners.

¶9

Mrs. Madhubala Kajle, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 7- State.

¶10

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 15^th JANUARY, 2024

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

This petition is filed by the original defendants challenging the

¶13

orders passed in the proceedings under section 85 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 for execution of the partition decree dated 30^th March 2011.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the division chart, originally prepared by the Tahasildar, instead of allotting Gat No. 1062 to the original plaintiffs, Gat No. 1046 should have been allotted to the original plaintiffs. He submitted that Gat No. 1062 is divided between the original plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 and

¶15

Page no. 1 of 3

¶16

37-wp-5263-2017.doc

¶17

defendant no.1. He thus, submitted that instead of dividing Gat no. 1062 only Gat No. 1046 should have been allotted to original plaintiff nos. 1 and 2.

¶18

Perusal of the impugned orders does not indicate that this objection was any time raised on behalf of the petitioners when the division chart that was prepared and approved by an order dated 30^th March 2011. The said order was challenged before the Sub Divisional Officer who confirmed the same by order dated 3^rd February 2012.

¶19

The aforesaid orders are also approved by the Additional Collector on 29^th October 2012, before whom the petitioners had filed appeal and subsequently also approved by the Additional Commissioner on 20^th May 2015 and then by the State Government on 9^th November 2016 in the Second Revision that was filed.

¶20

The partition decree of the Civil Court passed on 30^th March 2011 was not challenged by the petitioners, and the same has attained finality. The grounds of challenge raised with respect to the division of the property were considered by the authorities and have been approved concurrently by all the authorities. Objections raised by the petitioners cannot for the first time be considered in the

Page no. 2 of 3

37-wp-5263-2017.doc

petition.

I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by all

¶25

the authorities. The petition is devoid of merits.

¶26

The petition is dismissed.

¶27

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

¶28

Page no. 3 of 3

Shivappa Shankar Gidd and Ors. v. Rukhmini Balkrishna Khebude and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shivappa Shankar Gidd and Ors. v. Rukhmini Balkrishna Khebude and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Hanmantrao Banduji Pawar and Ors. Vs Ajinkya Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha , Sangli and Ors.

M/S. Sai Build Enterprise and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shashikant Bapu Aher Vs Ramesh Gangadhar Wagh

Mallappa Satappa Tali vs Madedev Satappa Tali

Pushpa Tukaram Salekar vs Vaishali Ramdas Salekar

Sachin Vasant Pawar vs Vasant Krishna Pawar Deceased) During Pendency of the Suit