Nilkanth S/O Chandrabhan Raut and Others Vs Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:11322

¶2

WP 3707.23 - Copy.odt

¶3

1

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3707 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONERS

¶7

1 Nilkanth s/o Chandrabhan Raut, Age about 68 yrs, Occ: Retired Teacher, R/o Vinoba Nagar, Tumsar, Tah. Tumsar, District Bhandara.

¶8

2 Waman s/o Chandrabhan Raut, Aged about 66 years, Occ: Cultivator, R/o. Welsakhara, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur.

¶9

3 Khushal s/o Ramdas Gharde, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Cultivator, R/o. Welsakhara, Tah. Umred, District Nagpur

¶10

.. VERSUS ..

¶11

RESPONDENTS 1 Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur.

¶12

2 Govinda s/o Ramdas Gharde, aged about years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Matkazari, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur.

¶13

3 Gopala s/o Ramdas Gharde, aged about years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Welsakhara, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur.

¶14

4 Murlidhar s/o Ramdas Gharde, Age: Major, Occ: Cultivator, R/o Welsakhara, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur

¶15

5 Sau. Laxmibai w/o Dashrath Meshram Age about years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Kanpa-Tenpa, Tah. Nagbhid,

¶16

WP 3707.23 - Copy.odt

¶17

2

¶18

District-Chandrapur.

¶19

6 Sau. Suman w/o Deorao Meshram, Aged about years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Thombra, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur.

¶20

7 Sau. Sheelabai Dhanraj Motghare, Aged about years, Occ: R/o Shravan Nagar, Wathoda Layout, Nagpur, Distt. Nagpur

¶21

8 Sau. Deokabai w/o Sudam Sahare, Aged about years, Occ: Household, R/o Chunabhatti, Ajni Police Quarters Nagpur.

¶22

9 Sau. Durgabai w/o Nana Gedam, Aged about years, Occ: Household, R/o Amboli, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur.

¶23

10 Sau. Pramlata w/o Devidas Meshram, aged about years, Occ: Household, R/o Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Rani Durgavati Chowk, Ambedkar Hospital, Nagpur

¶24

11 Sau Lalita wd/o Dyaneshwar Uke, Aged about Major, Occupation-Household, R/ o. Prabhag no.7, Plot No.40, Shivaji Nagar, Behind Purana Datta Mandir, Wanadongri, Hingna Road, Dist. Nagpur. (Amended as per order dated 07.09.2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court)

¶25

12

¶26

Sau. Sheela w/o Ganesh Sahare, Aged about years, Occ: Household, R/o Akoli, Post: Silli, Tah. Kuhi, Dist.

¶27

WP 3707.23 - Copy.odt

¶28

3

¶29

Nagpur.

¶30

13 Sau. Sundar w/o Ghanshyam Mahajan, Aged about years, Occ:Household, R/o Salwa, Tah. Kuhi, Dist. Nagpur.

¶31

14 Sau. Pornima w/o Tejram Ramteke, Aged about years, R/o Ruyad, Post:Wag, Tah. Kuhi, Dist. Nagpur.

¶32

15

¶33

Sau. Sangita w/o Sanghapal Khobragade, aged about years, Occ: Household, r/o Salwa, Tah. Kuhi, Dist. Nagpur.

¶34

16 Balkrushna s/o Laxman Chandankhede, aged about years, Occ. Agriculturist, r/o Lanjala, Tah. Kuhi, Dist. Nagpur

¶35

17 Sau. Sumanbai w/o Rajendra Meshram, aged about years, Occ: Household, R/o Chimanzari, Tah. Hingna, Dist. Nagpur.

¶36

18 Sau. Vandana w/o Vijay Wagade, aged about years, Occ: Household, r/o Takalghat, Tah. Hingna, Dist. Nagpur.

¶37

19 Sau. Maya w/o Suresh Burbure, Aged about years, Occ: Household, R/o Sonba Nagar, Lawha, Khadgaon Road, Wadi, Tah. and Dist. Nagpur.

¶38

20 Kewa S/o Jayram Gajbhiye, (Dead) aged about years, Occ: Lqabour, R/o Mandhal, Tah. Kuhi, Dist. Nagpur.

¶39

Lrs. of Respondent No.20

¶40

20.1) Ramabai Shriram Rangari,

¶41

WP 3707.23 - Copy.odt

¶42

4

¶43

Age 55 years, R/o at Mandal, Navegaon Road, near Sai Mandir, Tah. Kuhi, Dist. Nagpur.

¶44

1. Seema Rupesh Patil, Age 33 years, Occ: Housewife, Plot no.73 Chhabileshwar Mandir, Aaradhana Chowk, Dighori, Nagpur,

¶45

1. Darshan Keva Gajbhiye Since deceased through Legal HeirsPrajwalit Darshan Gajbhiye, aged 28 years, Occ: Business, r/o at Pawanshakti Nagar,

¶46

Plot No.103, Wathoda Near Swaminarayan, Mandir, Tah. and Dist. Nagpur (Amendment carried out as per Court’s order dt. 03.12.24)

¶47

1. Parashram s/o Kawdu Dhone Since Dead through his Legal Representatives:-

¶48

21A) Durgabai Narendra Naik, aged 32 years, R/o Welsakhara, Post: Udasa, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur

¶49

21B) Bharat s/o Parasram Dhone, age 30 years, R/o Welsakhara, Post: Udasa, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur.

¶50

21C) Kailas s/o Parasram Dhone, Age 37 years, R/o Welsakhara, Post: Udasa, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur.

¶51

1. Domanbai Zibal Borkar, aged about 77 years, Occ: Cultivator, R/o Dongargaon,

¶52

WP 3707.23 - Copy.odt

¶53

5

¶54

Tah. Kuhi, Dist. Nagpur.

¶55

Anjanabai wf/o. Shankar Chavan, Aged about 75 years, Occupation-Cultivator, R/o. Railway Station, Kuhi, Tah. Kuhi, Dist. Nagpur (Amended as per Hon’ble Court’s Order dt. 7/09/23)

¶56

Rukmabai Bhaiyya Kose Since Deceased through her Legal Heirs:-

¶57

24(a) Bhaiyaji s/o. Maroti Kose, Aged Major, Occupation-Cultivator, R/o. Kawadsi, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur. (Amended as per Hon’ble Court’s order dated 07/09/23)

¶58

24(b) Sachin Bhaiyyaji Kose, (Dead) Aged Major, Occupation-Cultivator, R/o. Dhurkheda, Post, Mangrud, Tah.Umred, Dist. Nagpur. (Amended as per Hon’ble Court’s order dated 07/09/23) Added LR’s of R. No. 24(b) i.e. 24-B-1 to 24B-3 vide Court’s order dt. 3/12/2024

¶59

Lrs. of Respondent No. 24-B

¶60

24B-1 Smt. Rajeshree wd/o Sachin Kose, age 32 years, Occ: Labour,

¶61

24B-2 Ku. Sharwari d/o Sachin Kose, Age: 11 years, Occ: Education,

¶62

24B-3 Ku. Manthan Sachin Kose, Age: 6 years, Occ: Education, being minor through natural guardian

¶63

WP 3707.23 - Copy.odt

¶64

6

¶65

mother Respondent No.24B-1 All Nos. 24B-1 to 24B-3 R/o Dhurkheda, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur

¶66

(Amended as per Court’s order dt. 03/12/24.)

¶67

24(c) Lata w/o Nagsen Warke Aged Major, Occupation-Household, R/o. Aptur, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur. (Amended as per Order of Hon’ble Court dt. 13/10/23)

¶68

Lrs. of Respondent No.24

¶69

24D)

¶70

Tanuja Naresh Chawhan, age about 45 years, occ: Cultivator, R/o Aptur, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur.

¶71

24E) Shalu Shashipal Mate, age about 30 years, Occ: Household, r/o Sugat Nagar, Near Buddha Vihar, Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur.

¶72

(Amendment as per Court’s order dt. 03/12/24)

¶73

Kisanabai Laxman Gajbhiye, Age: Major, Occ: Cultivator, R/o Udasa, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur.

¶74

1. Reshmabai Hariram Warke, Age 75 years, Occ: Labourer, R/o Udasa, Tah.Umred, Dist. Nagpur.

¶75

27

¶76

Sakhubai Shivram Hirekhan,

¶77

Aged about 80 years, OccupationCultivator, R/o. Mohakhedi (Mohagaon), Tah. Kuhi, Dist. Nagpur.

¶78

WP 3707.23 - Copy.odt

¶79

7

¶80

(Amended as per Hon’ble Courts order dt. 7/9/23 on 13/9/23)

¶81

1. Kashinath Jivan Patil, aged about 46 years, Occ: Cultivator, R/o Welsakhara, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur

¶82

1. Sau. Parbata Pramod Gajbhiye, Age:Major, Occ: Cultivator, R/o Zaturli, Tah. & Dist. Nagpur.

¶83

1. Maroti Jivan Patil, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Cultivator, R/o Welsakhara, Post: Udasa, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur

¶84

1. Kanchan Jivan Patil, age: Major, Occ: Cultivator, R/o Welsakhara, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur

¶85

1. Pankaj Jivan Patil, Age: Major, Occ: Cultivator, R/o Welsakhara, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur.

¶86

1. Ghanshyam Bapurao Patil, Age: Major, Occ: Cultivator, R/o Welsakhara, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur.

¶87

1. Ishwar Bapurao Patil, Age: Major, Occ: Cultivator, R/o Welsakhara, Post: Udasa, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur.

¶88

1. Atmaram Jayram Gajbhiye Since Deceased through Legal Representatives:-

¶89

35A) Smt. Shilabai Prakash Ramteke, Age: Major, Occ: Household, R/o Welsakhara, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur

¶90

WP 3707.23 - Copy.odt

¶91

8

¶92

35B) Maroti Atmaram Gajbhiye, Age: Major, Occ: Cultivator, R/o Welsakhara, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur.

¶93

35C) Arun Atmaram Gajbhiye, Age: Major (Dead) Occ: Cultivator, R/o Surgaon, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur, through Lrs.

¶94

35C-1) Aaman Arun Gajbhiye, Age 12 yrs., 35C-2) Mayur Arun Gajbhiye, Age 14 yrs., Both R/o Surgaon, Tah. Umred, Distt. Nagpur

¶95

35D) Leelabai Sarju Lokhande, Age: Major, Occ: Household, R/o Nari Nara, Takshila Nagar, Nagpur.

¶96

1. Dilip s/o Rajeshwar Sontakke,(Dead) Aged about years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Plot No.2324, Saikrupa Nagar, Near Pragati Hall, Dighori, Nagpur. Lrs. of Respondent No.36

¶97

36.1) Smt. Vijaya wd/o Dilip Sontakke, Age about 55 years, Occ: household work,

¶98

36.2) Sau. Priya w/o Kishor Mahurtale, age about 32 years, Occ: Household work,

¶99

36.3) Ku. Mayuri d/o Dilip Sontakke, aged about 30 years, Occ: Household work, All R/o Plot No.2324, Sai Krupa Niwas, Sarvashree Nagar, Near Pragati hall,

¶100

WP 3707.23 - Copy.odt

¶101

9

¶102

Dighori, Nagpur-440034.

¶103

(Amended as per Court’s order dt. 03/12/24)

¶104

Sharmila Gautam Mankar, Age: Major, Occ: Household,

¶105

Saloni Gautam Mankar, Age Major, Occ: Houasehold Both No. 37 & 38 R/o Khairi, Tah. Umred, Dist.1 Nagpur.

¶106

Khushal Bapurao Mohurle, Age: Major, Occ: Cultivator,

¶107

Sau. Vanita Khushalji Mohurle, Age: Major, Occ: Cultivator, Both Nos. 39 and 40 R/o. Wela (Harishchandra), Tah. & Dist. Nagpur

¶108

Mr. P.V. Thakare, a/w. Ms. V. P. Thakre, Advocates for Petitioners

¶109

Mr. S. B. Bissa, AGP for Respondent No.1/State.

¶110

Mr. V. B. Bhise, Advocate for Respondent No.16-A & 16-B.

¶111

Mr. N. B. Bargat, Advocate for Respondent Nos.34, 36(1) to 36(3), 37 to 40.

¶112

Mr. J. K. Matale, Advocate for Respondent No. 28, 30, 32, 33

¶113

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 15.10.2025

¶114

JUDGMENT :

¶115

1. Heard.

¶116

1. A suit for partition and separate possession was

¶117

WP 3707.23 - Copy.odt

¶118

10

¶119

filed by one Parasram Kawdu Dhone, who is respondent No.21 in the present petition. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 25.06.2001, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Umrer.

¶120

The present petitioners are the legal representatives of original defendant No.1. The learned Trial Court has granted 1/7^th share in the suit property to the plaintiff and defendant Nos.19, 20 and 21, and 1/7^th share to defendant No.1 and 2 together, defendant Nos.3 and 4 together, and defendant Nos.5 to 18 together. The following properties are subject matter of the suit:-

¶121

“Survey Numbers 129 of Mouza Udasa, 195,

¶122

248, 187, 35, 196, 226, 224, 229, 222, 197 of Mouza Yelsakhara, Tah. Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.”

¶123

The decree for partition passed by the learned Trial Court was confirmed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.02.2011, by dismissing the appeal preferred by defendant Nos.17and 18.

¶124

The present respondent No.36 had filed an application for addition of his name as a party respondent in

¶125

11

¶126

WP 3707.23 - Copy.odt

¶127

the said appeal invoking order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was allowed by the learned First Appellate Court and accordingly, the present respondent was arrayed as a respondent No.20 in the said appeal. The appeal came to be dismissed on 03.02.2011. The Second Appeal No.293 of 2011, preferred by the aforesaid appellants also met the same fate. The Second Appeal was dismissed on 06.06.2016.

¶128

The learned Trial Court has issued a precept for partition of agricultural lands as contemplated under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The precept was made over to the Tahsildar Umrer, who has effected partition vide order dated 18.05.2016 passed in Revenue Case No.38/SRV43/2014-15. The order passed by the Tahsildar was assailed by present respondent No.36 by filing an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 16.12.2017.

¶129

The Second Appeal preferred by respondent No.36 was also dismissed by the Additional Collector on 24.10.2018. Thereafter, respondent No.36, preferred revision

¶130

12

¶131

WP 3707.23 - Copy.odt

¶132

under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, being Revision No.37/SRV-43/2019, which came to be allowed vide order dated 25.01.2023 on the ground that the Tahsildar, while deciding the precept proceeding, did not issue notices to subsequent purchasers and also did not take into consideration subsequent sale deeds and documents of relinquishment. This order passed by the Revisional Authority is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

¶133

Before dealing with the merits of the matter, it will be appropriate to state that the present respondent No.36, who had challenged the order passed in precept proceedings by the Tahsildar, has purchased two lands bearing Survey Nos.184 and 187. Land bearing Survey Nos.184 is not the subject matter of the suit for partition and also the precept proceeding. However, land bearing Survey No.187 is a subject matter of suit and the said property is allotted to the share of the petitioners. The sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.36 is dated 30.07.2010. The learned First Appellate Court in its judgment dated 03.02.2011, observed that the present respondent No.36 will

¶134

13

¶135

WP 3707.23 - Copy.odt

¶136

merely stand in the shoes of the plaintiffs as subsequent purchasers of one of the suit properties. The judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court are binding on the plaintiff since he was added as a party to the appeal.

¶137

It will be pertinent to mention that respondent No.36, who had challenged the order of partition passed by the Tahsildar, has also filed Regular Civil Suit No.123 of 2016, challenging the decree for partition passed in Regular Civil Suit No.123 of 2016. The said suit is filed in the Month of July, 2016, and respondent No.36, who had filed the appeal and revision is plaintiff No.5 in the said suit.

¶138

The learned Revisional Authority has allowed the revision on the ground that the Tahsildar had not issued notices to subsequent purchasers. Perusal of order passed by the Tahsildar will demonstrate the Tahsildar had taken note of the Sale Deed executed in favour of respondent No.36. Respondent No.36 was a party to the proceedings before the learned Tahsildar. Thus the foundation of the order passed by the Revenue Authorities is misconceived.

¶139

14

¶140

WP 3707.23 - Copy.odt

¶141

In that view of the matter, the learned Revisional Authority could not have quashed and set aside the orders passed in the proceedings under Section 54 on the ground that some other persons were not issued notices, since the revision petitioner before the Authority was a party to proceeding before the Tahsildar.

¶142

In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed by quashing and setting aside the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, Division Nagpur in Revision No.37/SRV-43/2019.

¶143

The observations will not come in the way of the plaintiffs in R.C.S. No.123/2016, which may be decided on its own merits in accordance with law.

¶144

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

¶145

Tanmay...

Nilkanth S/O Chandrabhan Raut and Others v. Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilkanth S/O Chandrabhan Raut and Others v. Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bapurao Keshaorao Pimpalshende and Others Vs Shyamrao S/O Narayan Dhumne and Others

M/S Laxmi Builders, a Partnership Firm, Thr Its Partner Ramesh D. Ghundiyal vs M/S Pradeep Buiders, a Proprietorship Firm Thr Its Proprietor, Pradeep H. Ghundiyal

Smt. Geeta Wd/O Gangabisanji Mundhada and Others Vs Shyamrao S/O Narayan Dhumne and Others

Govinda Madhav Kale and Others vs Hiraji S/O Madhav Kale

Kalimulla Ajimulla vs Shri. Hitesh S/O. Mathuradas Kariya

Madhukar Krishnarao Thakare Vs Shankar Bapurao Charhate and Others