Dismissed¶29

Kailesh Raghunath Nalawade v. Narayan Dhondiba Nalawade

Bombay HC4 Aug 2025SA/451/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second Appeal No. 451 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, N. J. Jamadar J., decided 17 September 2025. Keywords: Section 32G Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948; MT&AL Act; Agricultural Land Tribunal; purchase price determination; finality of tenancy order; consolidation scheme allotment; bar of civil court jurisdiction; injunction simpliciter; title and lawful possession; no obstruction to possession and cultivation; no substantial question of law; Regular Civil Suit No. 192 of 2000; Civil Judge Junior Division Junnar; District Judge Rajgurunagar Khed; Interim Application No. 10540 of 2025 disposed.

What did the court decide?

The order passed by the Agricultural Land Tribunal under Section 32G of the MT&AL Act, 1948 attained finality and was never challenged by the defendants or their predecessor-in-title.

Kailesh Raghunath Nalawade vs Narayan Dhondiba Nalawade — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the challenge to the order determining the purchase price under Section 32G of the MT&AL Act, 1948 and the challenge to the allotment of the suit land under the Consolidation Scheme can be raised before the Civil Court, its jurisdiction standing expressly barred under those enactments. +2 more

¶26

Court's answer

The order passed by the Agricultural Land Tribunal under Section 32G of the MT&AL Act, 1948 attained finality and was never challenged by the defendants or their predecessor-in-title.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Neither the challenge to the order determining the purchase price under Section 32G of the MT&AL Act, 1948 nor the challenge to the allotment of the suit land to the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-title under the Consolidation Scheme can be raised before the Civil Court; the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands expressly barred under those enactments.

¶26

Key takeaways

As the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land is referable to lawful title and the defendants did not seem to have any better title, the defendants were under an obligation not to cause any obstruction to the plaintiff's possession and cultivation of the suit land.ratio¶27
The Appellate Court took a correct view of the matter and no substantial question of law arises for consideration; consequently the Second Appeal stands dismissed.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N. J. Jamadar, J.), by order dated 17 September 2025, dismissed Second Appeal No. 451 of 2025 filed by the defendants (Kailash Raghunath Nalawade and ors.) against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Rajgurunagar Khed, which had allowed the respondent - original plaintiff's (Narayan Dhondiba Nalawade) appeal against dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 192 of 2000 - a suit for injunction simpliciter based on title and lawful possession - and restrained the defendants from distributing the plaintiff's lawful possession over the suit land. The Court held that the order of the Agricultural Land Tribunal under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 determining the purchase price of the subject land had attained finality and was never challenged by the defendants or their predecessor-in-title, and that under the consolidation scheme the suit land was allotted to the plaintiff and his late father without challenge. Neither challenge could be raised before the Civil Court, its jurisdiction standing expressly barred under those enactments. Since the plaintiff's possession was referable to lawful title and the defendants had no better title, they were obliged not to obstruct his possession and cultivation. Holding that no substantial question of law arose, the Court dismissed the Second Appeal; Interim Application No. 10540 of 2025 also stood disposed.

¶1

29-SA451-2025+.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

SECOND APPEAL NO. 451 OF 2025

¶6

Kailash Raghunath Nalawade and ors. ...Appellants Versus

¶7

SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI

¶8

Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2025.09.19 11:09:26 +0530

¶9

Narayan Dhondiba Nalawade …Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10540 OF 2025 IN

¶10

SECOND APPEAL NO. 451 OF 2023

¶11

Kailash Raghunath Nalawade and ors. ...Applicants Versus

¶12

Narayan Dhondiba Nalawade …Respondent

¶13

Mr. Santosh Shirsat, for the Appellants. Mr. Vilas Tapkir, for the Respondent.

¶14

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 17^th SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶15

Order:-

¶16

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶17

This Second Appeal is directed against a judgment and

¶18

decree passed by the learned District Judge, Rajgurunagar Khed, District Pune, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent – original plaintiff against a judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar, dismissing Regular Civil Suit No.192 of 2000, instituted by the respondent came to be allowed by setting aside the said

¶19

1/4

¶20

29-SA451-2025+.DOC

¶21

decree and restraining the appellants – defendants from distributing the lawful possession of the respondent – plaintiff over the suit land.

¶22

Mr. Shirsat, the learned Counsel for the appellants, would urge that, the learned District Judge passed the impugned order swayed by the order passed in the proceedings under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“the MT&AL Act, 1948”), thereby determining purchase price of the subject land, ignoring evidence in the form of the agreements between the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff and defendants – appellants. An endeavour was made to urge that, the said proceedings under Section 32G of the MT&AL Act, 1948 were not lawfully constituted as the notices of the said proceedings were not served on the predecessor-in-title of the defendants, though his name was shown in the cultivators column.

¶23

First and foremost, it is imperative to note that, the suit was instituted for injunction simpliciter based on title and lawful possession over the suit land. The Appellate Court has rightly held that, the order passed by the Agricultural Land Tribunal under Section 32G of the MT&AL Act, 1948 attained finality and it was never challenged by the defendants or their

¶24

2/4

¶25

29-SA451-2025+.DOC

¶26

predecessor-in-title. Subsequently, under the consolidation scheme, the suit land came to be allotted to the plaintiff and his late father. There was no challenge to the allotment of the suit land under the consolidation scheme to the plaintiff. Neither the challenge to the order determining the purchase price under Section 32 G of the MT & AL Act, 1948 nor the challenge to the order of allotment of the suit land to the Plaintiff and his predecessor-in-title under the Consolidation Scheme can be raised before the Civil Court. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands expressly barred under those enactments.

¶27

In this view of the matter, as the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land is referable to lawful title and, conversely, the defendants did not seem to have any better title, the Defendants were under an obligation not to cause any obstruction to the possession and cultivation of the plaintiff of the suit land.

¶28