Disposed¶23

Santosh Baburao Newale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Mar 2026WP/14777/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition No. 14777 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Karnik and Modak JJ.), disposed 16th March 2026. Keywords: non-agriculturist land purchase; cash transaction after owner's demise; fraudulent sale-deeds; representations to Collector and Revenue Minister; expedition of civil suit pending 10-15 years; scope of writ petition; Santosh Baburao Newale v. State of Maharashtra.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with all contentions kept open; petitioner at liberty to request the trial Court to expedite the pending civil suit and to pursue appropriate remedies for grievances regarding respondent No.2's alleged fraudulent transactions. ¶23

Santosh Baburao Newale vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner may seek expedition of his civil suit concerning the sale transaction, which is stated to have been pending for 10-15 years. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

The petitioner can request the trial Court to expedite the pending civil suit; if the suit has been pending for more than 10 years, the trial Court shall consider expediting it on the request made by the petitioner.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The civil suit is to be tried on its own merits in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made by this Court.

¶21

Key takeaways

The grievance that respondent No.2 duped hundreds of other persons and got fraudulently executed sale-deeds in his favour cannot be made subject matter of this writ petition by enlarging its scope; it is open to the petitioner to resort to appropriate remedies to raise such grievances.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The Bombay High Court disposed of a writ petition in which the petitioner alleged that respondent No.2, though a non-agriculturist, had purchased the subject land from the petitioner's father in a cash transaction purportedly entered into after the father's demise, and had duped several persons through fraudulent transactions, with representations to the Collector and Revenue Minister yielding no action. The Court noted the petitioner's related civil suit had been pending 10-15 years and directed that the petitioner may request the trial Court to expedite it, which the trial Court shall consider where pendency exceeds 10 years, the suit to be decided on its own merits uninfluenced by this Court's observations. The wider allegation of fraud on hundreds of other persons was held incapable of being brought into the petition by enlarging its scope, with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies. All contentions were kept open.

¶1

30-wp 14777-24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 14777 OF 2024

¶4

Santosh Baburao Newale … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶7

... Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr. Digajmaan Mishra a/w. Mr. Yashmaan Mishra, Mr. Arpit K. Ashok and Mr. Aman Saroj for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl GP a/w. Ms. Dhruti Kapadi, AGP for the RespondentState.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND

¶13

S. M. MODAK, JJ. DATED : 16th MARCH, 2026.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has

¶17

duped several persons though he is non-agriculturist. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2, had purchased the land which is the subject matter of the present petition, from the petitioner’s father. However, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the entire transaction was in cash and that too has been shown to have been entered

¶18

into after the demise of the petitioner’s father. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the question whether respondent No.2 has entered into several transactions despite the fact that he is a non-

¶19

Amk 1/2

¶20

30-wp 14777-24.doc

¶21

agriculturist is required to be examined by the concerned authority. It is submitted that several representations have been made to the Collector and even to the Revenue Minister but no action has been taken against respondent No.2 in respect of such fraudulent transactions. It is pertinent to note that in respect of the sale transaction, the petitioner has already filed a civil suit. It is submitted that the said civil suit has been pending for the last 10-15 years. If that is so, the petitioner can always request the trial Court to expedite the suit and in any case, if the suit is pending for more than 10 years, the trial Court shall consider expediting the suit on the request made by the petitioner. The suit to be tried on its own merits in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made by this Court.

¶22

So far as the other grievance of the petitioner, that respondent No.2 has duped hundred’s of other persons and has got fraudulently executed sale-deeds in his favour, cannot be made subject matter of this petition by enlarging the scope of this petition. It is open for the petitioner to resort to appropriate remedies to raise such grievances.

¶23

Keeping all contentions open, the petition is disposed of.

¶24

(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶25

Amk 2/2

Santosh Baburao Newale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Baburao Newale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Shaikh Shahid Abdul Latif Dadamiya vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Ethics Infra Development Pvt. Ltd. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shreekrishna Chaitanya Enterprises vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citizen Co-Operative Housing Society Limited vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region Developer Authority

Bhavesh Premji Chothani vs Slum Redevelopment Authority Sra and 4 Ors.

Mani Mulji Padaya vs the State of Maharashtra