Bombay High Court
Prakash Maroti Hage vs Municipal Council, Through Chief ... on 6 December, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp7715.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.7715/2017
Prakash Maroti Hage,
age 38 Yrs., Occu. Hotel Business / Tea
Vendor, R/o Jalgoan Jamod, Tq. Jalgaon
Jamod, Distt. Buldana. ..Petitioner.
..Vs..
1. Municipal Council, Jalgaon Jamod,
through Chief Officer.
2. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue),
Jalgaon Jamod.
3. Sub-Divisional Officer (PWD),
Jalgaon Jamod.
4. Tahsildar, Jalgaon Jamod.
No.1 to 4 at Jalgaon Jamod,
Tq. Jalgaon Jamod, Distt. Buldhana.
5. State of Maharashtra,
through District Collector,
Buldhana, Tq. and Distt. Buldhana. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri A.D. Bhate, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N.R. Saboo, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 6.12.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri A.D. Bhate, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri N.R. Saboo,
2 wp7715.17
Advocate for respondent No.1 and Shri N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2
to 5.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner / plaintiff has challenged the orders passed by the
subordinate Courts concurrently rejecting the claim of the plaintiff for grant of
temporary injunction restraining the defendants from evicting him from the
suit land till 31st December, 2022. According to the plaintiff, he is entitled to
occupy the land in question till 31st December, 2022 as per the communication
alleged to have been issued by the Tahsildar Jalgaon on 2nd January, 2015. The
petitioner / plaintiff claims that by this communication the plaintiff is
permitted to occupy the land in question as the government has not refunded
the amount of Rs.40,000/- which the plaintiff had deposited under the interim
order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2521/2014.
4. Earlier communication dated 21st May, 2014 was issued to the
petitioner asking him to hand over vacant possession of the land in question, he
approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2521/2014 in which, while
granting interim order, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit an amount
of Rs.40,000/- with the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Writ Petition
No.2521/2014 came to be disposed by order dated 22 nd September, 2014.
This Court recorded that after 2004 the petitioner has no right to continue on
3 wp7715.17
the land in question and he is a trespasser. While disposing the petition this
Court directed that the Sub-Divisional Officer shall refund the amount of
Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner.
5. Now the petitioner has filed civil suit contending that as the amount
of Rs.40,000/- is not refunded to him the Tahsildar has issued communication
dated 2nd January, 2015 permitting the petitioner to occupy the land in
question till 31st December, 2022.
6. The entitlement of the petitioner to occupy the land in question is
already negatived by the Division Bench of this Court. It is the case of the
respondent that the alleged communication dated 2nd January, 2015 on which
the petitioner / plaintiff relies to substantiate his claim is a forged document.
The Advocate for the petitioner has argued that the communication dated 2nd
January, 2015 is not a forged document and whether it is a forged document or
not will have to be decided by the trial Court and till then the possession of
plaintiff is required to be protected otherwise the civil suit would be rendered
infructuous. Much is tried to be made out of the fact that the amount of
Rs.40,000/- is not repaid to him.
7. The learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 and the learned
A.G.P. have submitted that the amount of Rs.40,000/- alongwith interest as
4 wp7715.17
directed by the trial Court has been deposited before the trial Court.
8. Be that as it may, as I find that the petitioner has not been able to
point out prima facie case in his favour I am not inclined to exercise any
discretion in favour of the plaintiff / petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed.
In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
9. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the petitioner requested for
continuation of protection granted by the subordinate Courts for three weeks to
enable the petitioner to take appropriate steps in the matter.
The request is opposed by the learned Advocate for the respondent
and the learned A.G.P. on the ground that because of the orders passed by the
Court granting protection to the petitioner development work is stopped.
Considering the facts of the case and the findings recorded in the
matter, I am not inclined to grant the request made on behalf of the petitioner.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
