Mohiniraj Prabhakar Rajhans vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6606 Bom

                                          1               WP 9648 of 2016

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                        
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                
                             Writ Petition No.9648 of 2016

         *       Mohiniraj s/o Prabhakar Rajhans,
                 Age 46 years,
                 Occupation : Agriculture,




                                               
                 R/o. Sonai, Taluka Newasa,
                 District Ahmednagar.           ..         Petitioner.

                          Versus




                                       
         1)      The State of Maharashtra,
                             
                 Through District Collector,
                 Ahmednagar.
                            
         2)      The Executive Engineer,
                 Mula Irrigation Department,
                 Aurangabad Road,
                 Ahmednagar.
      


         3)      The Tahsildar,
                 Tahsil Office, Newasa,
   



                 Taluka Newasa,
                 District Ahmednagar.

         4)      Sanjay s/o Padmakar Joshi,





                 Age 46 years,
                 Occupation: Agriculture,
                 R/o Sonai, Taluka Newasa,
                 District Ahmednagar.               .. Respondents.





                                  --------
         Shri. Angad L. Kanade, Advocate, for petitioner.

         Shri. S.N. Kendre, Assistant Government Pleader, for
         respondent Nos.1 and 3.

         Shri. B.R. Survase, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

         Shri. S.P. Brahme, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
                                  ----------




    ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2016                ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2016 00:48:51 :::
                                            2                WP 9648 of 2016

                                   CORAM:        T.V. NALAWADE, J.

                                   DATE     :    22 NOVEMBER 2016




                                                  
         ORAL JUDGMENT:


         1)               Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard




                                                 

both the sides by consent for final disposal.

2) The present petition is filed to challenge the

order made by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Newasa in Regular Civil Suit No.165/2015. The suit is

filed by present respondent No.4 for relief of injunction

and following relief is claimed :-

"Defendant Nos.1 to 3 be prevented from interfering in the

lawful possession over the suit property and they should be prevented from taking back the possession if the plaintiff is paying Khand, lease amount to the defendants."

3) It is the case of the plaintiff that the land

Survey No.629/2 was given for cultivation by the

Government to the plaintiff in the year 1964-65 and since

then he has been in possession. This Court asked learned

counsel for the plaintiff to show record of giving lease

hold rights but there is no such record. Learned counsel

showed to this Court only entry made in the crop

3 WP 9648 of 2016

cultivation column. On the other hand, learned counsel

for the petitioner, who wants to intervene in the suit as

defendant, submitted that the suit property was belonging

to the ancestors of the petitioner. It was acquired for

percolation tank by the Government in the year 1967 and

after that in the year 1977 lease hold rights were given to

the ancestors of the petitioner. Again order was made in

the year 2015 and lease hold rights were given to the

petitioner and in spite of this circumstance, the suit for

aforesaid relief is filed behind the back of the petitioner.

Learned counsel submitted that in view of Government

policy which can be found in the rules made by the Public

Works Department in the year 1984, the previous owner

from whom the land is acquired has the right of priority to

take the land for cultivation on lease basis from the

Government. Thus the intervener wants to show to the

Court that the lease hold rights were given to him and the

land was belonging to his ancestors and as per the policy

of the Government, the intervener is entitled to have the

lease hold rights and to cultivate the land. On the other

hand, there is record only of aforesaid nature in favour of

the plaintiff.

                                             4               WP 9648 of 2016

         4)                 Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted




                                                                          

that the Government is not disputing the claim of the

plaintiff as the order of allotment of lease is issued in

favour of the plaintiff and the application for temporary

injunction filed against the Government is allowed. It is

clear that the party who wants to contest the matter is

kept out Court and the plaintiff has claimed relief by

making only the Government as party defendants.

5) In view of the aforesaid circumstances this

Court holds that the present petitioner is a necessary

party and his rights need to be considered before making

any order in respect of the relief claimed by the plaintiff

in the suit.

6) In the result, the petition is allowed. The order

made by the trial Court is hereby quashed and set aside.

The application is allowed. If felt necessary permission

can be granted to the plaintiff to make amendment in the

plaint after filing of written statement by the present

petitioner. Rule made absolute in those terms.

Sd/-

(T.V. NALAWADE, J. ) rsl