Anwar Liyakat Khan vs the Addl. Tahsildar and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Anwar Liyakat Khan vs the Addl. Tahsildar and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner is at liberty to adopt appropriate legal proceedings in respect of his alleged claim in the land in question; no opinion expressed on the maintainability of such proceedings.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition — praying for a mandamus to Respondent No.1 to consider/adjudicate the Petitioner's application to intervene in the sec. 32G MTAL tenancy case, together with ancillary prayers for temporary injunction against construction and hoardings on the disputed land and deposit of hoarding earnings — ought to be entertained by the Court.

Court's answer

The Petition cannot be entertained and is dismissed. The Court found it completely mischievous, having regard to (i) the inherent defect that the Petitioner's intervention application was filed in Case No.32G/SR/2/2023 instead of the intended Case No.32G/SR/3/2023, and (ii) the subsequent events that Case No.32G/SR/3/2023 was already decided by the Tahsildar on 29 April 2024 (tenancy claim upheld, purchase price fixed under Section 32G) and Tenancy Appeal No.472 of 2024 was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Haveli, Pune on 16 December 2024.

Ratio / Principle

While dismissing the Petition, the Petitioner is left at liberty to adopt appropriate legal proceedings in respect of his alleged claim in the land in question; the Court expressly expressed no opinion about the maintainability of such proceedings.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Sandeep V. Marne, J.; 6 March 2025) dismissed Writ Petition No.13832 of 2024 filed by Anwar Liyakat Khan, which prayed for (a) a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to consider and adjudicate the Petitioner's application to appear and submit in Tenancy Case No.KUKA/32G/S.R./2023 filed by Respondents No.2 to 12 under sec. 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948; (b) temporary injunction against construction and hoardings on the disputed land; and (c) alternatively, deposit of monies earned from hoardings. The Court observed the Petition was completely mischievous: the Petitioner had filed his intervention application in Case No.32G/SR/2/2023 (Ramchandra Fakira Khavle and Others V/s. Shahrukh Kai Khusroo Irani and Ors.) whereas he intended to intervene in Case No.32G/SR/3/2023, which the Tahsildar had already decided on 29 April 2024 by upholding the tenancy claim and fixing the purchase price under Section 32G, and whose appeal (Tenancy Appeal No.472 of 2024) was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Haveli, Pune on 16 December 2024. The Petition was dismissed, with liberty to the Petitioner to adopt appropriate legal proceedings, the Court expressing no opinion on their maintainability.

Megha 903_wp_13832_2024.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.13832 OF 2024

Anwar Liyakat Khan

...Petitioner

V/s.

The Addl. Tehsildar and Ors.

...Respondents

Mr. Ravi Kadam for the Petitioner.

Mr. Kedar Dighe, Addl. GP with Ms. Snehal S. Jadhav, AGP for Respondent-State.

Ms. Sanjukta Dey with Ms. Rhea Rajesh, Mr. Yash Dinde i/b. M/s. Yende Legal Associates for Respondent.

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated: 6 March 2025.

P.C.:

Petition appears to be completely mischievous for multiple reasons. Petition is filed seeking following prayers:-

MEGHA SHREEDHAR PARAB

Digitally signed by MEGHA SHREEDHAR PARAB Date: 2025.03.10 14:58:34 +0530

a] That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ, order and direction to the Respondent No.1 to consider and/or adjudicate the Petitioner’s Application to allow him to appear and make their submissions in the Tenancy Application, being Case No.KUKA/32G/S.R./2023 Inquiry Date 8^th August 2023, filed by the Respondent No.2 to 12 under sec. 32G of the MTAL Act, before deciding the aforesaid tenancy case in the interest of justice;

Page No. 1 of 3 6 March 2025

Megha 903_wp_13832_2024.docx

b] That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant temporary injunctions against the Respondents No.2 to 12, thereby carrying out any sort of construction activities and also allowing the hoarding agencies to put up hoardings on the said disputed land with the intention to profiteer themselves until the said tenancy is adjudicated by the Respondent No.1;

c] That, in the alternatives, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to 12 to deposit the money earned from the said disputed land by putting up hoarding on the said plot land to the department of this Hon’ble Court, so Petitioner’s right can be protected;

d] That the cost of present petition be provided for;

e] Such other and further reliefs be granted as the Court may deem fit and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice;

It appears that Petitioner has filed an application for intervention in Case No.32G/SR/2/2023 (Ramchandra Fakira Khavle and Others V/s. Shahrukh Kai Khusroo Irani and Ors.), whereas he actually intended to intervene in case No.32G/SR/3/2023.

It appears that Case No.32G/SR/3/2023 has already been decided by Tahsildar on 29 April 2024 upholding the tenancy claim and fixing purchase price under the provisions of Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The affected party apparently filed Tenancy Appeal No.472 of 2024, which came to be dismissed by Sub Divisional Officer, Haveli, Pune, by order dated 16 December 2024.

Page No. 2 of 3 6 March 2025

Megha 903_wp_13832_2024.docx

Considering the inherent defect in the application filed by the Petitioner, so also the subsequent events, the Petition cannot be entertained and the same is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner would however, be at liberty to adopt appropriate legal proceedings in respect of his alleged claim in the land in question. No opinion is expressed about maintainability of such proceedings.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

Page No. 3 of 3 6 March 2025