Allowed¶31

Shamrao Shahadu Patil and Others v. Dilawar Husain Tadavi and Others

Bombay HC2 Feb 2026WP/941/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police aid; temporary injunction; breach of injunction; sanctity of injunction order; Section 151; Order 39 Rule 2-A Civil Procedure Code; Section 36(2) Maharashtra Land Revenue Code; Section 36(3) Maharashtra Land Revenue Code; mutation entry cancellation; sale deed dated 21.10.1970; Tahsildar, Jamner; Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal stay dated 14.08.2025; harvesting standing crops; R.C.S. No.94 of 2024; Civil Judge Junior Division Jamner, District Jalgaon; writ petition allowed; Iqbal Singh v. Mridu Nagpal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (B): petitioner held entitled to police aid for a limited period of 30 days, subject to payment of necessary charges; observations confined to deciding the present writ petition. ¶31

Shamrao Shahadu Patil and Others vs Dilawar Husain Tadavi and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in whose favour a temporary injunction is subsisting and operating against the respondents, is entitled to police aid from the Civil Court to protect his possession and cultivation of the suit property. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

Where defendants persist in disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession or create hurdles in cultivation despite a temporary injunction, the Civil Court should extend necessary police aid, at least for harvesting standing crops.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Since the 1970 sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is intact and the competent authority has neither cancelled nor set it aside, the ground of proposed action under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code could not justify denial of police aid; the Tahsildar's cancellation order having been stayed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.

¶25

Key takeaways

Where respondents are apparently bent upon breaching the injunction order, it is imperative to provide police aid to maintain the sanctity of the injunction order.ratio¶30
Such police protection can be granted for a limited period to prevent breach of the injunction order.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), S.G. Chapalgaonkar J. — Writ petition allowed against order dated 22.12.2025 of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Jamner, declining the petitioner's application (Exhibit-62, under Section 151) for police aid in R.C.S. No.94 of 2024. Petitioner purchased the suit land under registered sale deed dated 21.10.1970; a temporary injunction (Exhibit-6, order dated 25.07.2024) operates against the respondents, whose appeal is sub judice without interim orders. The Tahsildar's order dated 07.01.2025 cancelling mutation entry no.181 (taken pursuant to the 1970 sale deed), with a proposal to the District Collector for cancellation under Section 36(2), Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, was stayed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 14.08.2025. Held: with the 1970 sale deed intact — neither cancelled nor set aside — and a subsisting temporary injunction, the Civil Court should extend necessary police aid, at least for harvesting standing crops, for a limited period to prevent breach of the injunction; where respondents are bent upon breaching the injunction, police aid is imperative to maintain its sanctity. Petitioner granted police aid for 30 days, subject to payment of necessary charges. Observations limited to deciding the writ petition. Respondents' reliance on Iqbal Singh Vs. Mridu Nagpal (CR No.1342 of 2009, P&H) for the Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC remedy did not alter the result.

¶1

22-wp-941-2026.odt

¶2

(1)

¶3

2026:BHC-AUG:5176

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 941 OF 2026

¶6

1.	Shamrao Shahadu Patil
	Age : 65 years, Occu : Agri.,
2.	Anil Ramdas Patil, Age: 46 years, Occu: Agri.,
3.	Pradip @ Dilip Ramdas Patil, Age: 41 years, occu: Agri.,
4.	Pramila Ramdas Patil, Age: 49 years, occu: Agri., All R/o. Madani, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon.
5.	Jijabai Pandhari Patil Age: 68 years, occu: Household, R/o. Molkheda, Tq. Soygaon, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
6.	Bebibai Suresh Patil Age: 56 years, Occu: Household, R/o. Anand Nagar, Bodwad, Tq. Bodwad, Dist. Jalgaon.
7.	Indirabai Prakash Patil Age: 46 years, Occu: Household,
8.	Chotibai @ Mina Bandu Patil Age: 46 years, Occu: Household, Both R/o. Karanji, Tq. Bodwad, Dist. Jalgaon.
9.	Pratibha Sanju Patil Age: 49 years, occu: Household,
10.	Pramilabai Shenfadu Patil (since deceased) through Legal heirs
10A.	Sanjay Shenfadu Patil Age: 43 years, Occu: Agri., No. 9 & 10A R/o, Jalandri, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. VERSUS	...Petitioners (Orig. Plaintiffs)
1.	Dilawar Husain Tadavi, Age: 55 years, Occu: Agri.,

¶7

22-wp-941-2026.odt

¶8

(2)

¶9

R/o. Madni, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. 2. Pramilabai Shenfadu Patil (Since deceased) through legal heir 2A. Pandu Shenfadu Patil (since deceased) through legal heirs 2Ai. Aruna Pandu Patil Age: 46 years, Occu: Household, 2Aii. Rupali Pandu Patil Age: 26 years, occu: Household, 2Aiii. Pawan Pandu Patil Age: 21 years, Occu: Agri., All R/o. Jalandri, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. 2Aiv. Bhagyashri Manoj Patil Age: 27 years, Occu: Household, R/o. Manegaon, Tq. Muktaingar Dist. Jalgaon. 3. Allauddin Husain Tadavi (Bhil) Age: Major, Occu: Labour work, R/o. Madni, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. 4. Rumsadabi Nashir Tadavi, Age: Major, Occu: Household, R/o. Vasantnagar, Ta. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. ...Respondents

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Wani Girish V. Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 : Mr. Shelke Manoj Uttamrao

¶11

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

¶12

DATED : FEBRUARY 02, 2026

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶14

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally

¶15

with consent of parties.

¶16

Present petition takes exception to order dated 22.12.2025 passed below Exhibit-62 in R.C.S. No.94 of 2024 by Civil

¶17

22-wp-941-2026.odt (3)

¶18

Judge Junior Division, Jamner, District Jalgaon, whereby petitioners application seeking police aid has been declined.

¶19

The petitioner purchased suit property under registered sale deed dated 21.10.1970. His name was entered in record of rights. The petitioner filed R.C.S. No.94 of 2024 before Civil Court seeking relief of declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction against respondents. He filed application below Exhibit-6 seeking temporary injunction. Thus, Trial Court after considering rival contentions, allowed application Exhibit-6 vide order dated 25.07.2024. The respondents filed appeal which is subjudice without interim orders. The order of temporary injunction passed against respondents is operating.

¶20

In this background, petitioner filed an application below Exhibit-62 under Section 151 for grant of police aid as respondents were obstructing him from cultivating land. However, Trial Court declined police protection merely on the ground that action under Section 36(2) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is proposed against petitioner, as transaction under sale deed dated 21.10.1970 is hit by Section 36(3) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The Trial Court observed that now revenue authorities have initiated proceedings to hand over possession of suit property in favour of respondents.

¶21

It appears that respondent no.1 initiated proceedings before Tahsildar under Section 36(3) of Maharashtra Land Revenue

¶22

22-wp-941-2026.odt

¶23

(4)

¶24

Code, learned Tahsildar vide order dated 07.01.2025 cancelled mutation entry no.181 taken in the year 1970 in pursuance to sale deed dated 21.10.1970 executed in favour of petitioner. Learned Tahsildar directed to move proposal to District Collector, Jalgaon for cancellation of sale deed under Section 36(2) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

¶25

Pertinently, Tahsildar’s order has been stayed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 14.08.2025 in Case No.12/A/2025/Jalgaon. The aforesaid sequence of events would show that till this date, sale deed of 1970 executed in favour of petitioner is intact. The competent authority has not cancelled or set aside the sale deed. The Civil Court has granted temporary injunction in favour of petitioner restraining respondents from disturbing peaceful possession of petitioner’s over suit property. In this backdrop, if defendants are persistent upon act of disturbance in peaceful possession of plaintiff or creating hurdles in cultivation of land, it is imperative that the Civil Court should extend necessary police aid, atleast for harvesting standing crops. Such police protection can be made for limited period to prevent breach of injunction order.

¶26

Mr. Shelke, learned advocate appearing for respondents would submit that in pursuance to order passed by Tahsildar dated 07.01.2025, mutation entry has been already cancelled therefore,

¶27

22-wp-941-2026.odt

¶28

(5)

¶29

petitioner cannot claim relief of police protection. In support of his contention, he relies upon judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in case of Iqbal Singh Vs. Mridu Nagpal and Anr. in CR No.1342 of 2009 decided on 03.09.2009 to contend that in case there is allegation of breach of injunction, remedy under Order 39 Rule 2-A of Civil Procedure Code would be available.

¶30

In present case, petitioner seeks police protection in view of subsisting injunction order operating against respondents. Apparently, respondents are bent upon to breach injunction order. It is imperative to provide police aid to maintain sanctity of injunction order.

¶31

In result, writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). The petitioner is held entitled for police aid for limited period of 30 days, subject to payment of necessary charges.

¶32

Needless to state here that observations made here-inabove are limited for purpose of deciding present writ petition and no authority or Court shall get influenced by it while taking decision on merit.

¶33

(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

¶34

Mujaheed//

Shamrao Shahadu Patil and Others v. Dilawar Husain Tadavi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamrao Shahadu Patil and Others v. Dilawar Husain Tadavi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitesh Shivaji Ingle vs the Divisional Commissioner Chh. Sambhajinagar and Others

Janardhan Aatmaram Jadhav and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Prashant Damodhar Thorat and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

M/S Shinde and Sons Thr Its Authorised Partner vs Executive Director Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation

Madhavrao Appa Adhane Died Thr Lrs Kashibai Madhavrao Adhane Died and Others vs Kamalbai Bandu Adhane and Others

Akshay Ravindra Bornare and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through the Collector and Others