Bombay High Court
Baburao Raghunath Raghoji Lad vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 18 October, 2016
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
WP No. 8468/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8468 OF 2016
Baburao S/o Raghunath @ Raghoji Lad
Age: 73 years, Occ: Ex-Military Man
R/o. Rambag, Manwat, Tq. Manwat,
Dist. Parbhani. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Parbhani.
2] The Tahsildar, Manwat
Tq. Manwat, Dist. Parbhani.
3] Amrata S/o Ambadas Bhadarge
Age: 70 years, Occu: Business,
R/o: Boudhanagar Manwat,
Tq. Manwat, Dist. Parbhani.
4] Ashok S/o Amrata Bhadarge
Age: 45 years, Occu: Business,
R/o : Boudhanagar Manwat,
Tq. Manwat, Dist. Parbhani.
5] Anil S/o Amrata Bhadarge
Age: 38 years, Occu: Business,
R/o : Boudhanagar Manwat,
Tq. Manwat, Dist. Parbhani.
6] Sudhir S/o Amrata Bhadarge
[Died] Through his L/rs.
6-a] Urmila W/o Sudhir Bhadarge
Age: 45 years, Occu: Household,
6-b] Harshwardhan S/o Sudhir Bhadarge
Age: 24 years, Occu: Education,
6-c] Aarti D/o Sudhir Bhadarge
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2016 00:52:49 :::
WP No. 8468/2016
2
Age: 21 years, Occu: Education,
6-d] Budhabhushan S/o Sudhir Bhadarge
Age: 18 years, Occu: Education,
6-e] Pradnya D/o Sudhir Bhadrage
Age: 17 years, Occu: Education
All R/o : Boudhanagar Manwat,
Tq. Manwat, Dist. Parbhani.
7] Sidharth S/o Amrata Bhadarge
Age: 38 years, Occu: Labour,
R/o : Boudhanagar Manwat,
Tq. Manwat, Dist. Parbhani. ...Respondents.
Mr. Sudhir K. Chavan, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Mr. P.V. Balkhande, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 7
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATED : 18th October, 2016.
JUDGMENT :
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent,
heard both the sides for final disposal.
2) The petition is filed to challenge the order made on
Exh. 93 in Regular Civil Suit No. 163/2013, which is pending in
the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gangakhed. The
application was filed by plaintiff, present petitioner to see that
the entire record in respect of the mutation No. 510 is called on
the record as on the basis of that record, the defendants are
claiming title. The Trial Court has rejected the application by
WP No. 8468/2016
observing that certified copies of such documents can be
collected. It is the case of plaintiff, petitioner that he had made
an attempt to collect the documents, but the documents are not
supplied to him by informing that file is not traceable. Such
correspondence is produced in Trial Court at Exh. 71.
3) The submissions made show that plaintiff wants to
prove that the suit land was alloted to him as he was serving in
military and when he was out of station, the land is taken over
by the defendants and the defendants have some record to
show that allotment is made subsequently in their favour. In
view of nature of dispute, it is desirable to ascertain as to
whether the allotment in favour of plaintiff was complete or it
was not complete and as to whether infact allotment of the land
was made in favour of defendants. For that, relevant record
needs to be considered by the Trial Court and that is in respect
of both the allotments. The plaintiff wants to bring on record, the
record of mutation only as according to him there was no base to
the mutation made in favour of defendants. In view of these
circumstances, the Trial Court ought to have granted permission
to the plaintiff to call the witnesses and ought to have issued
witness summons for producing the record.
WP No. 8468/2016
4) In the result, the petition is allowed. The order made
by the Trial Court on Exh. 93 in R.C.S. No. 163/2013 is hereby set
aside. The application at Exh. 93 is allowed.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]
ssc/
