Bombay High Court
Eknath Zengduji Latkar & 3 Ors vs Addl. Commissioner & 3 Ors on 7 October, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
wp2045.08.J.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2045 OF 2008
1] Eknath s/o Zengduji Latkar,
Aged 50 years.
2] Smt. Kantabai wd/o Gajanan Latkar,
Aged 45 years.
3] Ku. Nanda d/o Gajanan Latkar,
Aged 22 years.
4] Ku. Rajju d/o Gajanan Latkar,
Aged 20 years.
All R/o Mouza Sonegaon (Dhote),
Tah. Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha. ....... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1] Additional Commissioner, Nagpur,
District Nagpur.
2] Additional Collector, Wardha,
District Wardha.
3] Sub-Divisional Officer,
Hinganghat, District Wardha.
4] Shri Gnyaneshwar Zengduji Latkar,
Aged 64 years.
Resident of Sant Gnyaneshwar Ward,
Hinganghat, Dit. Wardha. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri C.S. Samudra, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri B.M. Lonare, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Shri P.P. Kotwal, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2016 00:08:24 :::
wp2045.08.J.odt 2/5
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
th OCTOBER, 2016.
DATE: 7
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] On the basis of the family arrangement dated
23.09.1982 entries were made in the revenue record on
04.11.1984 in the name of the petitioner No.1 and one Gajanan,
the brother of the petitioner No.1. After the death of Gajanan the
entries were modified on 13.03.1983 by bringing the names of
legal representatives of Gajanan on record. Sometime in the year
2003-2004, an application was made before the Sub-Divisional
Officer for setting aside the mutation entries in the name of the
petitioner and the legal representatives of Gajanan.
The Sub-Divisional Officer condoned the delay of twenty years
caused in filing the application and on merits set aside the entries.
The Additional Collector in appeal set aside the order of the
Sub-Divisional Officer and restored the entries in the name of the
petitioner and the legal representatives of Gajanan recording a
specific finding that there was no reason to condone the delay of
twenty years. The Additional Commissioner has set aside the order
of the Additional Collector and restored the order of the
Sub-Divisional Officer, which is the subject-matter of challenge in
wp2045.08.J.odt 3/5
this petition.
2] There is a dispute as regards the family arrangement
dated 23.09.1982 and Shri Kotwal, the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent No.4 submits that the said family arrangement
cannot be acted upon therefore, the entries made on that dates on
04.11.1984 and 13.03.1993 were illegal and were rightly set aside
by the Additional Commissioner. The Sub-Divisional Officer
condoned the delay of twenty years caused in filing an application
for setting aside the mutation entry. The Additional Collector
found that there was no reason for condoning twenty years of
delay and on that ground set aside the order of Sub-Divisional
Officer. The Additional Commissioner did not touch the aspect of
delay, but set aside the order of Additional Collector.
3] In view of the aforesaid factual position the dispute as
to document dated 23.09.1982, as to whether it is a family
arrangement, partition or a simple letter is required to be resolved
by the court of competent jurisdiction. The entries standing in the
name of the petitioner and the legal representatives of Gajanan
from 04.11.1984 and 13.03.1993 upto 2003-2004 could not have
been set aside and the parties should have been relegated to adopt
wp2045.08.J.odt 4/5
the appropriate course of action to decide the validity of the
document dated 23.09.1982. The order passed by the Additional
Commissioner without recording any finding on the aspect of
delay of twenty years is without jurisdiction. The same cannot
therefore, be sustained.
4] In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order
dated 31.12.2007 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur
in Revision Appeal No.23/RTS-64/2005-06 is hereby quashed and
set aside. The order dated 30.12.2005 passed by the Additional
Collector is restored. The parties are at liberty to file civil suit
either for partition or for title and possession if so advice. None of
the findings recorded by the Collector in the order impugned or by
the Sub-Divisional Officer shall come in the way of the parties
while adjudicating the matter in the court of competent
jurisdiction in accordance with law.
JUDGE
NSN
wp2045.08.J.odt 5/5
C E R T I F I C A T E
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : Uploaded on : 14.10.2016.
N.S. Nikhare, P.A.
