Disposed¶20

Vasudeo Anandrao Pawar and Others v. Ashok Pandurang Adhau and Others

Bombay HC25 Mar 2025WP/864/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Writ Petition No. 864 of 2025; Vasudeo Anandrao Pawar vs Ashok Pandurang Adhau; Anil L. Pansare J.; 17-04-2025; Court Commissioner map discrepancy; map prepared 9-6-2016 vs Commissioner appointed 2023; remarks no. 4 encroachment; Gat No. 257; Gat Nos. 260 and 260/1; 1.76 HR; misleading statement; affidavit called for; listed week commencing 5-5-2025; interlocutory order; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory directions only: map tendered by the learned AGP taken on record and marked 'Article X'; petitioners directed to file affidavit explaining the misleading statement; matter listed in the week commencing 5-5-2025. ¶20

Vasudeo Anandrao Pawar and Others vs Ashok Pandurang Adhau and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the map placed on record before this Court is the same map referred to in the impugned order, which records the Court Commissioner's remark that the encroached portion is shown at serial no. 4. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Prima facie, the map relied upon by the petitioners (prepared on 9-6-2016, whereas the Court Commissioner was appointed in 2023) is not the same as the map referred to in the impugned order; the map placed on record by the learned AGP indicates, under remarks no. 4, encroachment on land bearing Gat No. 257, with occupiers of Gat Nos. 260 and 260/1 in possession of 1.76 HR thereof.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners appear to have misled this Court by filing a map which was either not placed on record before the trial Court or not referred to by it; they are called upon to explain the misleading statement and an affidavit is to be filed to that effect.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order (Anil L. Pansare J., 17-04-2025) in Writ Petition No. 864 of 2025, High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench. The learned AGP tendered a map with letter dated 8-4-2025 of the Deputy Superintendent of Land Record, appointed Court Commissioner (respondent no. 11), taken on record as 'Article X'. The Court found that the map earlier placed by the petitioners was prepared on 9-6-2016, before the Commissioner's 2023 appointment, and prima facie is not the map referred to in the impugned trial Court order; the AGP's map records under remarks no. 4 encroachment on Gat No. 257 by occupiers of Gat Nos. 260 and 260/1 admeasuring 1.76 HR. Holding the petitioners to apparently have misled the Court, it called upon them to explain by affidavit and listed the matter in the week commencing 5-5-2025.

¶1

1 wp 864.2025.odt

¶2

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

¶3

Writ Petition No. 864 of 2025

¶4

[Vasudeo Anandrao Pawar and ors. ..vs.. Ashok Pandurang Adhau

¶5

and ors.]

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

¶10

Mr. I. A. Fidvi, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. D. V. Sapkal, AGP for the respondent no. 11

¶11

CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE J.

¶12

DATED : 17-04-2025

¶13

Learned Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) has tendered across the bar copy of map along with letter dated 8-4-2025 issued by Deputy Superintendent of Land Record (respondent no. 11 herein), who was appointed as Court Commissioner. Copy of the same has been supplied to petitioners’ counsel today as well. Same is taken on record and marked ‘Article X’ for identification.

¶14

The map is so filed because in order dated 24-2-2025, this Court noted that order impugned refers to the remark of Court Commissioner that encroached portion has been shown at serial no. 4. However, the map placed on record before this Court did not show such encroachment and, therefore, learned AGP was called upon to take instructions.

¶15

Learned AGP submits that map placed before this Court is not the map referred to by the trial Court.

¶16

I have therefore, once again gone through the map placed before the Court to find that map was prepared on 9-6-2016 whereas the Court Commissioner is appointed in 2023. Thus, prima facie the map relied upon by the petitioners appears to be not the same which has been referred to in the impugned order. The map placed on record today by learned

¶17

2 wp 864.2025.odt

¶18

AGP indicates that under remarks no. 4, there is a clear mention of encroachment on land bearing Gat No. 257. The remark further indicates that occupiers of land bearing Gat No. 260 and 260/1 are in possession of land admeasuring 1.76 HR of the land being Gat No. 257. It is this portion of map that is referred to in the impugned order.

¶19

The petitioners appear to have mislead this Court by filing map which was either not placed on record before the trial Court or was not referred to by the trial Court. The petitioners are accordingly called upon to explain as to why such misleading statement is made. Affidavit be filed to that effect.

¶20

List in the week commencing from 5-5-2025.

¶21

(Anil L. Pansare, J.)

¶22

wasnik

¶23

Signed by: Mr. A. Y. Wasnik Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 17/04/2025 18:52:44

Vasudeo Anandrao Pawar and Others v. Ashok Pandurang Adhau and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasudeo Anandrao Pawar and Others v. Ashok Pandurang Adhau and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shashikant Balkrushna Gaikwad vs the Honble Minister, Co-Operation Department, Govt. of Maha., Mumbai and Ors.

Prakash Namdeo Dhole (Dead), through His Lrs. vs Hajrat Shah Badroddhin Darga Thr. President, Hayat Kalandar Sanstha, Mangrulpir and Ors.

Municipal Council, Pusad, Thr. Chief Officer, Pusad, Yavatmal and Another vs Shivaji S/O Sambhaji Waikule and Others

Arun S/O Ramkrishna Pawade vs Sharman Paints, Thr. Its Priprietor Mrs. Taradevi Sharma

Sau. Asha Indradas Zilpe vs the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and Ors.

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company, Thr. Superintending Engineer, Yavatmal Circle vs Vaibhav Spintex Pvt. Ltd., through Its Director, Smt. Usha Sunil Bhandari