Bombay High Court
Syed Chand Syed Mustafa vs The State Of Maharashtra And Othrs on 5 May, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5713 OF 1995
Syed Chand Syed Mustafa,
Age-47 years, Occu-Service,
Driver, R/o Baiji Pura,
Aurangabad PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The Collector, Parbhani,
District : Parbhani,
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through G.P. Bench at Aurangabad,
3. Amrutha S/o Yeshwantha Kale,
Age-60 years, Occu-Agriculture,
Village - Devsadi, Tq.Jintoor, Dist.Parbhani,
4. Dayanand S/o Amruthrao Kale,
R/o Devsadi, Tq.Jintoor, Dist.Parbhani. RESPONDENTS
Mr.Mohd.Mustafa Ahmed Momin, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.S.S.Raut, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 05/05/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This matter was Admitted by an order dated 22/07/1996. No
interim relief was granted to the petitioner.
khs/May 2016/5713-d
2 I have heard Mr.Momin, learned Advocate at length in this
matter.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that he is the owner and
possessor of the property at issue. He was convicted for the offence
of murder and was in jail from 1947 till 1967. The property Survey
No.21 was illegally and unauthorizedly possessed by Ramrao Kale
and after his death by Dayanand Amrutrao Kale, who had purchased
the property from Ramrao Kale.
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by a letter issued by the District
Collector dated 25/05/1995 intimating the learned Advocate for the
petitioner that R.C.S.No.184/1984 in which the petitioner was
defendant No.1, has been decreed by judgment dated 26/08/1995.
5. The operative part of the order dated 26/08/1985 reads as
under :-
"Plaintiffs suit against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is decreed as
follows :-
Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are hereby declared the owners of suit field
Survey No.21/4 of village Devsadi, Tal.Jintoor.
The defendants 1 and 2 are hereby permanently restrained from
causing obstruction and interference in the plaintiffs possession
khs/May 2016/5713-d
over the suit field.
The defendant No.1 shall pay the cost of this suit to the plaintiffs
and bear his own cost.
Decree be drawn accordingly.
dated : 26/08/1985"
6. The District Collector was the Custodian of the property. As a
Custodian of the Evacuee property, State of Maharashtra, he had
also recommended to the Under-Secretary of the Government of
India, Ministry of Supply and Rehabilitation, Department of
Rehabilitation by his letter in favour of the petitioner. It is, therefore,
submitted that the District Collector be directed to decide Case
No.323/1990 pending with him.
7. I have considered the submissions of Mr.Momin.
8. None appears for the respondents.
9. The letter of the District Collector dated 25/05/2015, which is
impugned in this petition, is neither an order passed by the collector
in his capacity as a Quasi-Judicial Authority, nor can this Court
exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to issue a direction to the State
to conduct a particular enquiry instituted by the petitioner, which is
khs/May 2016/5713-d
pending.
10. Notwithstanding the above, the petitioner is defendant No.1 in
RCS No.184/1984 which suit has been decreed by the order dated
26/08/1985. A decree by a competent Civil Court, cannot be
nullified or watered down by issuing any directions to the Collector.
Even if, the petitioner contends that the judgment and decree is
without jurisdiction or is legally unsustainable, same cannot be
accepted unless the said decree has been set aside by a superior
Court on its merits.
11. In the light of the above, this petition is devoid of merit and is,
therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
12. Nevertheless, in the event the petitioner desires to approach
the competent Court within 6 (six) weeks from today for assailing the
decree dated 26/08/1985, the time spent by the petitioner in this
Court from 09/11/1995 till the passing of this order shall be taken
into account while considering the aspect of delay.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/May 2016/5713-d
