Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 2999 Bom
Judgement Date : 20 June, 2016
wp159-15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.159 OF 2015
Wasudeorao s/o Jagdeorao Bondre,
aged 55 years, Occu. Cultivator,
R/o Gaiwadi, Tq. Daryapur,
District Amravati. ... ... ... Petitioner.
..Versus..
Uday s/o Vinayakrao Deshmukh,
Aged 50 years, Occu. Cultivator and
Busienss, R/o Pusada,
Tq. & Dist. Amravati. ... ... ... Respondent.
.......................................................................................................................................................
Mr. R.J. Shinde, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.G. Palshikar, advocate for the respondent. .......................................................................................................................................................
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR,
J.
DATED : 20 th
JUNE,
2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT.
In view of notice for final disposal, the learned counsel for the
parties have been heard at length.
2. The petitioner is the original defendant in a suit filed by the
respondent for possession of the suit field based on sale deed dated
9.9.2002. In the said suit the trial court framed issues on 4.2.2013.
Thereafter the defendant moved an application below Exh. 60 praying that
.....2/-
wp159-15
the proceedings in the suit be stayed and issue no. 4A be referred to the
Sub-Divisional Officer as the said issue related to question as to whether
the sale deed was hit by the provisions of Bombay Prevention of
Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 ( for short the
Act). By the impugned order, the trial court rejected the said application.
3. Shri Shinde, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted
that the issue no. 4A would have to be decided only by the Sub-Divisional
Officer and the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the same.
According to him, the sale deed in question was hit by the provisions of
the said Act and therefore the issue ought to have been referred for
adjudication to the Sub-Divisional Officer. In support of his submission
the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of learned Single
Judge in W.P. No.70/2009 ( Mohammad Iqbal Vs. Tulsiram Baliram Dhole
and others).
4. Shri Palshikar, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the
other hand, submitted that the plaintiff was first required to establish his
title and in case such title was established, the matter would come up
before the Collector for deciding whether the decree should be executed as
the same related to fragmented land. In that regard he placed reliance on
.....3/-
wp159-15
the judgment of learned Single Judge reported in 2002(2) Mh.L.J. 623
(Sidagonda Avagonda Sardar Patil and another Vs. Bhimgonda Kadkgonda
Kushappa Patil deceaed by his heirs Babgonda and others). It is submitted
that this Court had held that the plaintiff had to first establish his title and
thereafter approach the Collector for granting permission.
5. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and have
given consideration to their submissions. The trial court in the impugned
order observed that issue no. 4A had been wrongly framed as the sale
deed in question was admittedly executed by the defendant. It was held
that only after the decree was passed by the Court, that the role of the
Collector would come into picture. In Sidagonda Avagonda Sardar Patil
and another Vs. Bhimgonda Kadgonda and others (supra) it was held that
where plaintiff seeks possession of the suit land on the basis of title, he has
to first establish his title in the civil court. After title is established, he can
then approach the Collector for sub-division of the land in question. The
facts of the aforesaid case are identical to the case in hand. It is the
respondent who has filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of his title. In
case he succeeds in the suit he would have to approach the Collector for
seeking sanction of the sub-division. In the light of the aforesaid law, I do
.....4/-
wp159-15
not find that the trial court committed any error in rejecting the
application.
In view of aforesaid, there is no question to interfere with the
order. The parties are at liberty to follow the course that has been
prescribed in para 15 and 16 of the judgment in Sidagonda and another
Vs. Bhimgonda and others (supra) after decision in the suit. The petition
is disposed of in aforesaid terms. No costs.
JUDGE
Hirekhan
...../-
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!