Bombay High Court
Baliram Bhau Hingmire vs Shivmurti Ghansham Hingmire Died ... on 12 December, 2017
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 WP - 3048-2014-J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3048 OF 2014
Baliram S/o Bhau Hingmire
Age : 35 years, Occu.: Agri.,
R/at : Kaudgaon, Tal. and
Dist. Osmanabad .. Petitioner
Versus
1. Shivmurti S/o Ghansham Hingmire,
Died through LRs.
1-A. Kamalbai Shivmurti Hingmire,
Age : 65 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/at : Kaudgaon, Tal. and
Dist. Osmanabad
1-B. Devidas S/o Shivmurti Hingmire,
Age : 50 years, Occu.: Agri.,
R/at : Kaudgaon, Tal. and
Dist. Osmanabad
1-C. Bharat S/o Shivmurti Hingmire,
Age : 45 years, Occu.: Agri.,
R/at : Kaudgaon, Tal and
Dist. Osmanabad
1-D. Shankar S/o Shivmurti Hingmire,
Age : 43 years, Occu.: Agri.,
R/at : Kaudgaon, Tal. and
Dist. Osmanabad .. Respondents
...
Mr. V.R. Bhumkar, Advocate for petitioner
None present for respondents 1-A to 1-D though served.
...
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 12-12-2017
2 WP - 3048-2014-J
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned
counsel for petitioner finally.
2. Despite notice on second occasion intimating that the
petition would be taken up for final hearing at the admission stage,
no appearance is caused on behalf of the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner Mr. Bhumkar points out
that suit has been filed for removal of encroachment over land in gat
no. 21 against respondents, who are adjoining land owners and
related to the petitioner. Before approaching the court, an attempt
had been made to have their land measured through taluka
inspector of land records, however, that was resisted by the
respondents. As such, suit had been filed for removal of
encroachment and an application had been made for appointment of
taluka inspector of land records as court commissioner for
measurement of land, however, that application (Exhibit-10) came to
be rejected under order dated 16-12-2004 considering that there
was no attempt by petitioner to have measurement of the land on
his own. Subsequently, having regard to the order passed,
application had been made to have measurement of the land to
taluka inspector of land records. The measurement was not
3 WP - 3048-2014-J
allowed by defendant and panchanama depicting the same had been
drawn on 28-05-2007.
4. Thereafter, application Exhibit-79 had been moved for
appointment of court commissioner. However, the same came to be
rejected as the advocate of the petitioner could not make it to the
court and considering that earlier attempt to have appointment of
court commissioner had failed. Suit is for recovery of possession of
land, by removing encroachment and it appears that there have
been attempts by petitioner to cause measurement of land through
taluka inspector of land records had not borne out fruits due to
resistance by defendants and on earlier occasion, there has been
rejection of application for appointment of taluka inspector of land
records as court commissioner because the petitioner had not
approached the office of taluka inspector of land records. It appears
from the documents that subsequent to order passed by court on
exhibit-10, there have been attempts to have measurement of land
through taluka inspector of land records, the same could not take
place due to resistance of the defendant-respondent.
5. In the circumstances, there does not appear to be
resistance to application Exhibit-79, except, technical objection that
earlier application has been filed and rejected, taking overall view of
4 WP - 3048-2014-J
the matter and the nature of suit, it appears to be expedient that
the application be granted. As such, application Exhibit-79 stands
allowed. Writ petition stands disposed of.
6. Rule made absolute accordingly.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH]
JUDGE
arp/
