Mohd Sharif Shaikh Yasin Sidique ... vs Muktar Ahmed Noor Nabi
2017 Latest Caselaw 6587 Bom

                                         1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            WRIT PETITION NO.9023 OF 2015

1.       Mohd.Sharif Shaikh Yasin Sidique,
         Age-Major, Occu-Business,

2.       Shaikh Mohd.Abdul Shakur,
         Age-Major, Occu-Business,

3.       Haji Rizwan Abdul Khalik,
         Age-Major, Occu-Business,

4.       Hafiz Abdul Haq Abdul Raheman,
         Age-Major, Occu-Business,

5.       Shaikh Hussain Shaikh Ahmed,
         Age-Major, Occu-Business,

6.       Imran Ahmed Mohd.Yunus Azmi,
         Age-Major, Occu-Business,

7.       Sayeed Ahmed Nabi Shaikh,
         Age-Major, Occu-Business,

8.       Irfanoddin Kabiroddin Shaikh,
         Age-Major, Occu-Business,

9.       Ainoddin Shamsuddin Shaikh,
         Age-Major, Occu-Business,

10.      Sabir Ahmed Shaikh,
         Age-Major, Occu-Business,

11.      Hussainoddin Shamsuddin Shaikh,
         Age-Major, Occu-Business,

         All R/o Dhule, Taluka
         and District Dhule.                                     - PETITIONERS 

VERSUS

khs/AUGUST 2017/9023-d




  ::: Uploaded on - 01/09/2017                     ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2017 01:50:43 :::
                                         2


Muktar Ahmed Noor Nabi,
Age-Major, Occu-Business,
R/o Tasha Galli, Sultania Chowk,
Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule                               - RESPONDENT 

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9030 OF 2015

1. Mohd.Sharif Shaikh Yasin Sidique, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

2. Shaikh Mohd.Abdul Shakur, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

3. Haji Rizwan Abdul Khalik, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

4. Hafiz Abdul Haq Abdul Raheman, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

5. Shaikh Hussain Shaikh Ahmed, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

6. Imran Ahmed Mohd.Yunus Azmi, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

7. Sayeed Ahmed Nabi Shaikh, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

8. Irfanoddin Kabiroddin Shaikh, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

9. Ainoddin Shamsuddin Shaikh, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

10. Sabir Ahmed Shaikh, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

11. Hussainoddin Shamsuddin Shaikh, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

khs/AUGUST 2017/9023-d

All R/o Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule. - PETITIONERS

VERSUS

Muktar Ahmed Noor Nabi, Age-Major, Occu-Business, R/o Tasha Galli, Sultania Chowk, Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule - RESPONDENT

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9049 OF 2015

1. Mohd.Sharif Shaikh Yasin Sidique, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

2. Shaikh Mohd.Abdul Shakur, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

3. Haji Rizwan Abdul Khalik, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

4. Hafiz Abdul Haq Abdul Raheman, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

5. Shaikh Hussain Shaikh Ahmed, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

6. Imran Ahmed Mohd.Yunus Azmi, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

7. Sayeed Ahmed Nabi Shaikh, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

8. Irfanoddin Kabiroddin Shaikh, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

9. Ainoddin Shamsuddin Shaikh, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

10. Sabir Ahmed Shaikh, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

khs/AUGUST 2017/9023-d

11. Hussainoddin Shamsuddin Shaikh, Age-Major, Occu-Business,

All R/o Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule. - PETITIONERS

VERSUS

Muktar Ahmed Noor Nabi, Age-Major, Occu-Business, R/o Tasha Galli, Sultania Chowk, Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule - RESPONDENT

Mr.S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.P.B.Pawar, Advocate for the respondent.

( CORAM : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)

DATE : 29/08/2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

2. All these petitioners are identically placed and all the litigating

sides are identical. All of them are litigating with reference to 3

change reports bearing No.719/2004, 286/1998 and 253/2010,

respectively. In all these matters, the petitioners are aggrieved by the

identical orders dated 18/06/2015 by which petitioner Nos.1 to 3

namely Mohd.Sharif, Shaikh Mohd., and Haji Rizwan have been

khs/AUGUST 2017/9023-d

permitted to intervene in the change report enquiry proceedings.

Petitioner Nos.4 to 11 have not been permitted to intervene by the

impugned orders on account of the following observation of the

authority concerned :-

"Remaining applicants Nos.4 to 11 are not produced any documentary evidence showing that they are the persons having interest in the dust hence only applicant No.1` to 3 are allowed to join as party opponent to the proceeding."

3. Mr.Jadhavar, learned Advocate for the petitioners strenuously

expresses an apprehension that by the above quoted observation,

these 7 applicants will now be precluded from establishing their

membership and their interest in the trust though they are the

members of the trust and the record evidences this aspect.

4. I do not find that the apprehension of the petitioners is well

placed. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 have been allowed to intervene and

since they are leading a particular group, they would also be at liberty

to prove the membership of their colleagues who are petitioner Nos. 4

to 11. So also, the above quoted observation of the authority below is

due to there being no record before it. This impression is not a final

conclusion of the authority below. The 3 applicants, who are

khs/AUGUST 2017/9023-d

permitted to intervene, can lead oral and documentary evidence

and prove the membership of the whole group of 11 persons. The

authority below would naturally consider the entire oral and

documentary evidence while deciding the change reports.

5. With the above observations, these 3 petitions are disposed of.

Needless to state, the Authority below would consider the oral and

documentary evidence before it while deciding the fate of the

change reports.

6. At the request of the learned Advocates, the authority below

may endeavour to decide the change reports of 1998 and 2004

expeditiously and preferably within a period of 6 (six) months.

( Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)

khs/AUGUST 2017/9023-d