Lakhanchand S/O Brijlal Purohit ... vs Marwadi Sansthan Hanuman Mandir, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3754 Bom

                                    1                                         wp4134.14




                                                                           
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                      




                                                   
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                  
     WRIT PETITION NO.4134 OF 2014


     1) Lakhanlal s/o Brijlal Purohit,
         Aged 65 years, Occ. - Retired, 




                                       
     2) Omprakash s/o Brijlal Purohit,
                             
         Aged 50 years, Occ.- Retired, 
      
     3) Dilip s/o Ramkisan Purohit,
                            
         Aged 46 years, 
         
         All R/o Akot, Tahsil - Akot, 
         District - Akola.                                  ....       PETITIONERS
      


               
   



                         VERSUS


     1) Marwadi Sansthan Hanuman Mandir,





         Registered Public Trust, Akot,
         through President- Mr. Brijlal Maniklal
         Bhandari, Akot, Tahsil - Akot, 
         District - Akola.

     2) Rukhminibai Narayan Khandole,





         Aged - Adult.

     3) Lalchand Narayan Khandole,
         Aged - Adult, 

     4) Subhash Narayan Khandole,
         Aged - Adult, 

     5) Smt. Janabai Ramesh Papalwal,
         Aged - Adult,



    ::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2016                   ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:04:47 :::
                                             2                                           wp4134.14




                                                                                     
                                                             
         All 2 to 5 R/o Shanipeth, Subhash Chowk,
         Jalgaon Khandesh, District - Jalgaon.

     6) The Member,




                                                            
         Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, 
         Nagpur, Tahsil and District Nagpur.                          ....       RESPONDENTS


     ______________________________________________________________




                                               
                  Shri C.A. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners, 
              Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for the respondent No.1, 
                             
               Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, A.G.P. for the respondent No.6,
                         None for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
      ______________________________________________________________
                            
                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 12 JULY, 2016.

th

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri C.A. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners, Shri

R.L. Khapre, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and Mrs. H.N. Prabhu,

Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.6.

None appears for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 though

served.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith

3. The respondent No.1-Trust is owner of agricultural land.

Shri Dhanaji Khandole was the tenant of the agricultural

3 wp4134.14

land. After death of Shri Dhanaji Khandole, his son Shri Narayan

Khandole occupied the agricultural land and then after death of Shri

Narayan Khandole, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 occupied the agricultural

land. The respondent Nos.2 to 5 staked their claim for conferral of

statutory ownership over the concerned agricultural land, under

Section 49A of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands

(Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy

Act of 1958"). In these proceedings, this Court, by the judgment given

in Writ Petition No.2130/1996 on 16-09-2000, concluded that the

present respondent Nos.2 to 5 had no right to claim statutory

ownership over the concerned agricultural land.

The present petitioners claim that they have purchased the

concerned agricultural land from the present respondent Nos.2 to 5 by

sale-deed registered on 30-04-1990. In view of the finding recorded by

this Court in the judgment given in Writ Petition No.2130/1996 that

the present respondent Nos.2 to 5 had to right to claim statutory

ownership, the sale-deed executed by the present respondent Nos.2 to

5 in favour of the present petitioners has no legal sanctity inasmuch as

the present respondent Nos.2 to 5 had no transferable title.

4 wp4134.14

4. The respondent No.1-Trust filed an application under

Section 120(c) of the Tenancy Act of 1958 contending that the present

petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of the agricultural land and

they be summarily evicted. The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the

application filed by the respondent No.1-Trust. The revision filed by

the respondent No.1-Trust before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is

allowed. The Tribunal has recorded that the sale-deed executed by the

present respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in favour of the present petitioners was

illegal as prior permission as required by Section 57 of the Tenancy Act

of 1958 was not obtained.

5. Be that as it may, in view of the finding recorded by this

Court in the judgment given in Writ Petition No.2130/1996 that the

present respondent Nos.2 to 5 had no right to claim statutory

ownership over the concerned agricultural land, the sale-deed

executed by the present respondent Nos.2 to 5 in favour of the present

petitioners is null and void. The petitioners claim to be in possession

as owners, on the basis of the sale-deed dated 30-04-1990. It having

been found that the sale-deed dated 30-04-1990 is illegal and void, the

possession of the petitioners over the agricultural land is unauthorised.

5 wp4134.14

6. In view of the above, the order passed by the Maharashtra

Revenue Tribunal allowing the claim of the respondent No.1-Trust as

made in the application under Section 120 (c) of the Tenancy Act of

1958, cannot be faulted with.

The petition is dismissed with costs quantified at

Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent No.1-Trust

within two months.

JUDGE

adgokar

CERTIFICATE

"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment."

Uploaded by : P.M. Adgokar. Uploaded on : 18-07-2016.

P.A..