Bombay High Court
Harshal Manohar Mane vs Supadu Shenpadu Mali And Others on 4 May, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 WP-5063.16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5063 OF 2016
Dr. Harshal s/o Manohar Mane
Age 40 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner,
R/o. Kishna Hospital, Kajgaon Road,
Parola, Dist. Jalgaon ... PETITIONER
(Affected person)
VERSUS
1. Supadu Shenpadu Mali
Age 60 years, Occ. Agri.
2. Daga Gotu Mali
Since deceased through legal heirs
2-1) Raju Daga Mali
Age 48 years, Occ. Agri.,
2-2) Vithoba Daga Mali
Age 46 years, Occ. Agri.
2-3) Bhagwan Daga Mali
Age 43 years, Occ. Agri
2-4) Dnyaneshwar Daga Mali
Age 39 years, Occ. Agri.
3. Dagubai Kisan Choudhari
Since deceased through legal heirs
3-1) Nimba Kisan Choudhari
Age 50 years, Occ. Agri.
::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:56:46 :::
2 WP-5063.16.doc
4. Zendu Bhaga Mahajan
Since deceased through legal heirs
4-1) Shantaram Zendu Mahajan
Age 62 years, Occ. Agri.,
4-2) Dayaram Zendu Mahajan
Age 60 years, Occ. Agri.
5. Atmaram Bhika Mali
Age 69 years, Occ. Agri.
6. Bhika Chindhu Choudhari
Age 50 years, Occ. Agri.
7. Atmaram Zinga Choudhari
Age 55 years, Occ. Agri.
8. Ananda Ramchandra Mali
Since deceased through legal heirs
8-1) Geetabai Ananda Mali
Age: 60 years, Occ. Agri.
9. Naginbai Motilal Jaiswal
Age: 60 years, Occ. Agri.
10. Phulsing Kisan Patil
Since deceased through legal heirs
10-1) Bapu Phulsing Patil
Age 45 years, Occ. Agri.
11. Sahebrao Baliram Mali
Age 50 years, Occ. Agri.
12. Bhoju Sandu Mali
Since deceased through legal heirs
12-1) Balu Bhoju Mali
Age 46 years, Occ. Agri.
::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:56:46 :::
3 WP-5063.16.doc
13. Gorakh Sanpat Mali
Since deceased through legal heirs
13-1) Prakash Gorakh Mali
Age 36 years, Occ. Agri.
14. Ukhardu Sampat Mali
Age 65 years, Occ. Agri.
15. Sow. Nirmalabai Subhash Mali
Age: 40 years, Occ. Agri.
16. Rambhau Narsu Choudhari
Since deceased through legal heirs
16-1) Bapu Rambhau Choudhari
Age 55 years, Occ. Agri.
17. Narayan Sukdeo Mali
Since deceased through legal heirs
17-1) Atmaram Narayan Mali (Died)
17/1/1) Anita Atmaram Mali
Age 42 years, Occ. Agri.
18. Shankar Bhaga Mali
Since deceased through legal heirs
18-1) Sitaram Shankar Mali
Age 63 years, Occ. Agri.
19. Khandu Bhaga Mali
Since deceased through legal heirs
19-1) Soma Khandu Mali
Age 53 years, Occ. Agri.
20. Rajdhar Sandu Mali
Since deceased through legal heirs
20-1) Tapiram Rajdhar Mali
Age 60 years, Occ. Agri.
21. Atmaram Eka Mali
Since deceased through legal heirs
21-1) Bhagwan Atmaram Mali
Age 58 years, Occ. Agri.
::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:56:46 :::
4 WP-5063.16.doc
22. Santosh Shenpadu Mali
Age 58 years, Occ. Agri.
R/o. C/o. Bhagwan Daga Mali
Sagam Traders, Parola,
Near Bhajimarket, Parola,
Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon
Through their General Power of Attorney Holder
1. Bhagwan Daga Mali
Age 43 years, Occ. Agri.
2. Santosh Shenpadu Mali
Age 58 years, Occ. Agri.
Both R/o-Maliwada, Parola
Dist - Jalgaon
3. Nimba Kisan Choudhary
Age - 50 years, Occ. Agri.
R/o Bahiram Galli,
near Gajanana Mandir,
Parola, Dist - Jalgaon (Orig. Applicants)
23. Shree Samb Hari Hareshwar
Shree Pataleshwar & Zapat Bhawani Trust
Through
A. Deepak
B. Mangesh
24. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32. ... RESPONDENTS
.....
Mr. B. R. Waramaa, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. Parag V. Barde, Advocate for respondent No.1 - caveator
Mr. D. K. Rajput, Advocate for respondent No.23
Mr. S. K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent No.24
.....
::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:56:46 :::
5 WP-5063.16.doc
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 4th MAY, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
with consent of learned advocates for the parties.
2. The petitioner, purportedly aggrieved by an order dated
29th April, 2016 passed by the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue,
Maharashtra State in Review Application bearing DEV-3216-
Case No.223/J-6, whereunder, according to learned counsel
ad-interim order has been passed straight-away without
looking into various aspects involved in the matter and
staying operation of order dated 5th May, 2014 passed by the
then State Minister for Revenue, Maharashtra State in case
No. DEV-1013/P.K. 290/L-4, pursuant to which concerned land
had been deleted from Inam Class-III category and brought
under revenue assessment and registered sale-deed has
been executed in favour of the petitioner and others.
3. Learned counsel further refers to that the claim of
review petitioners before the authority is spurious for variety
of reasons, and is absolutely untenable. Respondent No.23 is
6 WP-5063.16.doc
registered trust established pre-independence and
administered by trustees. The trust owns and possesses
agricultural lands including the lands concerned in the present
matter. Respondents No. 1 to 22 claimed themselves to be
cultivators over the lands, however, their claim of tenancy
stands rejected since tiller's day and relevant entries have
also been appearing continuously since 1962 onwards.
4.
Thereafter, after following due procedure of law, the
lands have been converted into a marketable land and
accordingly, transaction has taken place. Learned counsel for
petitioner further submits that, however, suddenly the review
application has been preferred before present Revenue
Minister without impleading petitioner herein as party to the
same. An order came to be passed on said review application
without hearing concerned parties including present petitioner
and without considering relevant aspects involved in the
matter.
5. He further submits that as a matter of fact, review
applicants have filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction
against present petitioner and the trust and this fact has been
suppressed in the review proceedings before the authority. He
7 WP-5063.16.doc
submits that, in this scenario staying the order passed way
back in 2014 is absolutely illegal and unsustainable.
6. Mr. Barde, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1 - caveator contends that in the review proceedings
respondent No.1 is not averse to make petitioner a party
though there is no order to make the petitioner a party to
those proceedings. He further submits that in any case,
ad-interim order does not become final automatically. It is
open for the petitioner to take up appropriate proceedings
before the authority before which the matter is pending.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is
getting affected by the impugned order.
8. In view of aforesaid, it would be open for the petitioner
to take up appropriate proceedings before the authority for
his impleading in review application, and seek appropriate
orders.
9. It is expected that if at all petitioner approaches the
authority, the entire process should be completed thereafter
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of
writ of this order.
8 WP-5063.16.doc
10. Having regard to aforesaid, at this juncture, it does not
to be a stage mature enough calling for interference under
the discretionary powers of this court.
11. As such, with aforesaid directions, writ petition stand
disposed of. Needless to refer to that all points are open for
the parties. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. )
sms
