Dismissed¶¶16

Sau. Janabai Samadhan Khandare, Thr. Her P.O.a., Chandrakant Samadhan Khandare v. Vikas Bhimrao Arakhrao

Bombay HC6 Feb 2026WP/1085/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition dismissed; temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff upheld; concurrent findings of Trial Court and Appellate Court; no perversity in discretionary orders; prima facie case made out; grandfather's purchase from Jaiwantabai; 7/12 extract; actual possession; herbicide sprayed; Old Survey No.48; New Gat No.189; Gat No.192; 0.23 H.R. encroachment; ownership and possession left for trial; direction to Trial Court to expedite civil suit; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Khubalkar J.; decided 06.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; the Trial Court is directed to expeditiously decide the civil suit. ¶¶16

Sau. Janabai Samadhan Khandare, Thr. Her P.O.a… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; the Trial Court is directed to expeditiously decide the civil suit.

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent/plaintiff is the actual owner and possessor of Old Survey No.48, New Gat No.189 or Gat No.192. +2 more

¶¶12

Court's answer

The contentions regarding ownership/possession of Old Survey No.48, New Gat No.189 or Gat No.192 and the alleged encroachment of 0.23 H.R. are left open for adjudication on the basis of evidence to be led in the civil suit.

¶¶12

Ratio / Principle

Both the Courts below recorded findings on the contentions canvassed by the parties and passed reasoned orders; on perusal of the reasoning, no perversity is found in the impugned discretionary orders.

¶¶15

Key takeaways

No interference is warranted with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; the writ petition is dismissed.ratio¶¶16
At the interlocutory stage the plaintiff made out a prima facie case: documents show his grandfather purchased the suit property from Jaiwantabai, the 7/12 extract shows the name of the plaintiff's father, and the plaintiff demonstrated actual possession of the land on which herbicide was sprayed.ratio¶¶14
Considering the controversy involved in the suit, the Trial Court is directed to expeditiously decide the civil suit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging concurrent orders of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff — dismissed. The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court (Khubalkar, J.) found both courts below had passed reasoned orders with no perversity. The plaintiff was held to have made out a prima facie case: documents showed his grandfather purchased the suit property from Jaiwantabai, the 7/12 extract bore his father's name, and he demonstrated actual possession of the land where herbicide was sprayed. Questions of actual ownership/possession of Old Survey No.48, New Gat No.189 or Gat No.192, and alleged encroachment of 0.23 H.R. of Gat No.189, were left for adjudication on evidence at trial. The Trial Court was directed to expeditiously decide the civil suit.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:2154

¶2

1 7-WP-1085-2026.odt

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1085 OF 2026

¶5

Sau. Janabai Samadhan Khandare Vs. Vikas Bhimrao Arakhrao

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

Mr. N.S. Warulkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

CORAM: PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J . DATED : 06th FEBRUARY, 2026

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

Petitioner’s challenge is to the concurrent orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

¶11

Perusal of the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court, shows that the discretionary orders have been passed on the basis of the relevant factual and legal aspects and having found that the respondent/plaintiff has established a prima-facie case, temporary injunction is granted in his favour.

¶12

The contentions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner about the issue as to whether the respondent/plaintiff is actual owner and possessor of the Old Survey No.48, New Gat No.189 or Gat No.192 and whether he has encroached upon land to the extent of 0.23 H.R. of Gat No.189, which is allegedly in the ownership of petitioner/defendant and the other issue raised by the parties are subject matter of adjudication on the basis of evidence to be led in the civil suit. The plaintiff has filed on

¶13

2 7-WP-1085-2026.odt

¶14

record documents to show that his grandfather purchased suit property from Jaiwantabai and the 7/12 extract shows name of father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has demonstrated his actual possession of the land on which herbicide was sprayed. As such, plaintiff made out a prima-facie case.

¶15

Both the Courts below have recorded the findings about the contentions canvassed by the parties and passed reasoned orders. On perusal of the reasoning, I do not find any perversity with the impugned discretionary orders.

¶16

In view of this, no interference is warranted with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. However, considering the controversy involved in the suit, the Trial Court is directed to expeditiously decide the civil suit.

¶17

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

¶18

𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁

Sau. Janabai Samadhan Khandare, Thr. Her P.O.a., Chandrakant Samadhan Khandare v. Vikas Bhimrao Arakhrao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau. Janabai Samadhan Khandare, Thr. Her P.O.a., Chandrakant Samadhan Khandare v. Vikas Bhimrao Arakhrao

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gopal Zaparuzi Ambadkar vs Haribhau Tukaram Umbarkar and Others

Madhukar Sahebrao Deshmukh (Lr Kaveri Madhukar Deshmukh) vs State of Maharashtra, Forest Settlement Officer, Amravati and Another

Nagnath Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Thr. General Manager, Hingoli vs Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Thr. Presiding Officer, Nagpur

Smt. Kalyani Sandip Suradkar vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Buldana and Others

Madhukar Sahebrao Deshmukh (Lr Kaveri Madhukar Deshmukh) vs State of Maharashtra, Forest Settlement Officer, Amravati and Another

I. D. B.I. Bank Ltd., Nagpur Thr. Rajeshwar S/O. Dinkar Kulkarni vs Vidarbha Sahitya Sangh, Thr. President and Ex-Officio Trustee, and Anr.