Manmath Vaijinath Jangam Godare ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2007 Bom

                                          1                    WP/3534/2016

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 3534 OF 2016




                                                                           
    1.       Manmath S/o Vaijinath Jangam @ Godare,




                                                   
             Age 30 years, Occupation : Agril.,

    2.       Mahananda W/o Vaijinath Jangam @ Godare,
             Age 55 years, Occu. Household,




                                                  
    3.       Virbhadra S/o Vaijinath Jangam @ Godare,
             Age 34 years, Occupation : Agril.,

    4.       Gangabai W/o Punjaram Lahankar,




                                             
             Age 38 years, Occu. Household,
             All R/o Dongarkada, Tq. Kallamnuri,
             District Hingoli      ig                       .. Petitioners

                  Vs.
                                 
    1.       The State of Maharashtra,

    2.       The Principal Secretary/
             Officer on Special Duty,
      

             Revenue and Forest Department,
             Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
   



    3.       The Divisional Additional Commissioner,
             Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

    4.       The Additional Collector,





             Hingoli, District Hingoli.

    5.       The Assistant Collector,
             Hingoli District Hingoli





    6.       The Tahsildar, Kallamnuri,
             Tq. Kallamnuri, Dist. Hingoli.

    7.       The Circle Officer,
             Dongarkada,Tq. Kallamnuri,
             District Hingoli.




         ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2016              ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:10:17 :::
                                             2                      WP/3534/2016



    8.       The Talathi,
             Talathi Sajja Wadgaon / Jawala
             Tq. Kallamnuri, Dist.Hingoli.




                                                                               
    9.       Rama S/o Siddhoji Mundhe,




                                                      
             Age 60 years, Occu. Agril.,
             R/o Hiwara/Jalwla, Tq. Kallamnuri,
             District Hingoli                                  .. Respondents

                                      ----




                                                     
    Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocat h/f Mr. A.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for the
    petitioners
    Mr. S.N. Kendre, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 8
    Mr. S.S. Londhe, Advocate for the respondent no. 9




                                               
                                      ----
                                   ig     CORAM     : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

                                          DATE      : 28-04-2016

    ORAL JUDGMENT :
                                 

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

consent of the parties.

2. The facts in brief, can be narrated as under:

. Present respondent no.9 was plaintiff in regular civil suit

no.85 of 1979 filed in the court of civil judge junior division seeking

declaration of ownership and possession in respect of the property

bearing survey no. 87/1 against the father of the present petitioners

and another. The suit was decreed. Regular civil appeal carried

therefrom failed. Even second appeal at the instance of the

defendants failed before this High Court. Regular darkhast has been

filed for execution of the decree of possession, pursuant to which

3 WP/3534/2016

under a panchanama, possession of the suit property had been

delivered to the plaintiff - respondent no.9. It also transpires that

accordingly, the satisfaction of the decree has also been intimated to

the civil court and the same has also been noted.

. With reference to aforesaid proceedings, the respondent

no.9 had initiated proceedings before the revenue authorities for

deletion of present petitioners' names appearing in the revenue record.

The tahsildar declined the request and the said order was reversed in

appeal before the sub divisional officer.

ig The present petitioners

aggrieved thereby, had been before the commissioner in revision. The

revision was dismissed. Against that, the review was filed. That was

also dismissed. Thereafter, second revision had been preferred before

the State government, which had been dismissed observing that by the

decree in civil suit no. 85 of 1979, entitlement of respondent no.9 has

been upheld. The decree of ownership of 6 acre 15 guntha of survey

no. 87/1 has been granted in favour of respondent no.9 and the decree

also requires that the possession of an area of 2 acre 39 guntha from

said survey number be given to the respondent no.9. The revenue

proceedings in respect of the land had been taken into account and the

chief secretary and officer on special duty has dismissed the revision

stating that there is nothing wrong in the orders passed.

4 WP/3534/2016

3. Learned counsel Mrs. Kulkarni h/f Mr. A.M. Kulkarni for the

petitioners contends that Vaijnath was in possession of the suit

property till his death and after his death, the petitioners have been in

possession of the suit property. Vaijnath died on 1-5-2007 and,

thereafter, entry of the name of the petitioners in respect of the

subject matter has been taken in the revenue record. Whereas the

contention of the respondent no.9 is that delivery of possession has

been on 11-11-2005. She submits that this is clear indication that

the possession receipt is merely a paper panchanama and nothing

more as even thereafter the name of Vaijnath continued to appear in

the revenue record and after his death, the names of the present

petitioners. As such, the request of deletion of their names could not

have been considered by the revenue authorities.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents however contends

that as a matter of fact the revenue entries were only paper record till

the deletion of the petitioners' names from the revenue record.

Execution of the decree had taken place long back and its satisfaction

has been recorded by the court. This fact had not been taken note of

by the revenue authorities and under the circumstances, deceased

Vaijnath's name initially continued and, thereafter, those of the

petitioners. However, beyond paper record, said entries had no

efficacy. Factual position is that the respondent no.9 has been duly put

in possession of the suit property and in pursuance of the same, he

5 WP/3534/2016

had applied for the deletion of the petitioners' names from the revenue

record. He submits that even otherwise the petitioners cannot claim

any right to the suit property. They have none and the same stands

proved by the verdict of the civil court, which has remained intact till

the High Court. There are no further proceedings taken by any of the

parties before the Supreme Court. The decree of the trial court has

merged into the orders passed by the High Court and as such, request

for deletion of the names of the petitioners is legitimate and rightful.

5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and facts with

regard to the litigation, which are beyond dispute, I do not think that

the present case is such, wherein discretion should be exercised in

favour of the petitioners. The authorities hitherto particularly, the

collector, commissioner and the chief secretary have considered the

facts properly and the legal effect of the orders passed from time to

time. The petitioners even otherwise do not appear to have any

independent right to the suit property.

6. The writ petition as such fails and is dismissed. Rule

stands discharged.

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH] JUDGE

arp/