1 wp7715.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.7715/2017
Prakash Maroti Hage,
age 38 Yrs., Occu. Hotel Business / Tea
Vendor, R/o Jalgoan Jamod, Tq. Jalgaon
Jamod, Distt. Buldana. ..Petitioner.
..Vs..
1. Municipal Council, Jalgaon Jamod,
through Chief Officer.
2. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue),
Jalgaon Jamod.
3. Sub-Divisional Officer (PWD),
Jalgaon Jamod.
4. Tahsildar, Jalgaon Jamod.
No.1 to 4 at Jalgaon Jamod,
Tq. Jalgaon Jamod, Distt. Buldhana.
5. State of Maharashtra,
through District Collector,
Buldhana, Tq. and Distt. Buldhana. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri A.D. Bhate, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N.R. Saboo, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 6.12.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri A.D. Bhate, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri N.R. Saboo, ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 00:30:19 ::: 2 wp7715.17 Advocate for respondent No.1 and Shri N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner / plaintiff has challenged the orders passed by the subordinate Courts concurrently rejecting the claim of the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from evicting him from the suit land till 31st December, 2022. According to the plaintiff, he is entitled to occupy the land in question till 31st December, 2022 as per the communication alleged to have been issued by the Tahsildar Jalgaon on 2nd January, 2015. The petitioner / plaintiff claims that by this communication the plaintiff is permitted to occupy the land in question as the government has not refunded the amount of Rs.40,000/- which the plaintiff had deposited under the interim order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2521/2014.
4. Earlier communication dated 21st May, 2014 was issued to the petitioner asking him to hand over vacant possession of the land in question, he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2521/2014 in which, while granting interim order, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.40,000/- with the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Writ Petition No.2521/2014 came to be disposed by order dated 22 nd September, 2014. This Court recorded that after 2004 the petitioner has no right to continue on ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 00:30:19 ::: 3 wp7715.17 the land in question and he is a trespasser. While disposing the petition this Court directed that the Sub-Divisional Officer shall refund the amount of Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner.
5. Now the petitioner has filed civil suit contending that as the amount of Rs.40,000/- is not refunded to him the Tahsildar has issued communication dated 2nd January, 2015 permitting the petitioner to occupy the land in question till 31st December, 2022.
6. The entitlement of the petitioner to occupy the land in question is already negatived by the Division Bench of this Court. It is the case of the respondent that the alleged communication dated 2nd January, 2015 on which the petitioner / plaintiff relies to substantiate his claim is a forged document. The Advocate for the petitioner has argued that the communication dated 2nd January, 2015 is not a forged document and whether it is a forged document or not will have to be decided by the trial Court and till then the possession of plaintiff is required to be protected otherwise the civil suit would be rendered infructuous. Much is tried to be made out of the fact that the amount of Rs.40,000/- is not repaid to him.
7. The learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 and the learned A.G.P. have submitted that the amount of Rs.40,000/- alongwith interest as ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 00:30:19 ::: 4 wp7715.17 directed by the trial Court has been deposited before the trial Court.
8. Be that as it may, as I find that the petitioner has not been able to point out prima facie case in his favour I am not inclined to exercise any discretion in favour of the plaintiff / petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
9. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the petitioner requested for continuation of protection granted by the subordinate Courts for three weeks to enable the petitioner to take appropriate steps in the matter.
The request is opposed by the learned Advocate for the respondent and the learned A.G.P. on the ground that because of the orders passed by the Court granting protection to the petitioner development work is stopped.
Considering the facts of the case and the findings recorded in the matter, I am not inclined to grant the request made on behalf of the petitioner.
JUDGE Tambaskar.
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 00:30:19 :::