Changdeo Mahadeo Kawade vs Ambadas Laxman Adhav Died Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4262 Bom

                                       {1}
                                                                 wp 929.16.odt

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       WRIT PETITION NO.929 OF 2016

 Changdeo Mahadeo Kawade
 Age: 78 years, occu: agri
 R/o Mahegaon, Tq. Rahuri
 Dist. Ahmednagar                                     Petitioner
                                                      (Ori.D.H.)


          Versus


 Ambadas Laxman Adhav
 deceased through LRs:-


 1        Annasaheb S/o Ambadas Adhav
          Age: 55 years, occu: Agri


 2        Bharat s/o Ambadas Adhav
          Age: 50 years, occu: Agri


 3        Ramchandra S/o Ambadas Adhav
          Age: 48 years, occu: Agri


 4        Dattatraya S/o Ambadas Adhav
          Age: 42 years, occu: agri


 5        Sanjay S/o Ambadas Adhav
          Age: 40 years, occu: Agri


 6        Sau. Suman Subhash Kahandal,
          Age: 53 years, occu: Agri


 7        Sau. Sunita Kishor Galande
          Age:35 years, occu: Agri




::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017                 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:19:42 :::
                                            {2}
                                                                         wp 929.16.odt


 8        Bhimabai w/o Ambadas Adhav
          Age: 75 years, occu: Agri


          All R/o Mahegaon, Tq. Rahuri
          Dist. Ahmednagar                                             Respondents

(Ori.J.D.)

Mr. P.S. Pawar advocate for the petitioner Mr. N.V. Gaware advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 8 _______________

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J (Date : 10th July, 2017.)

ORAL JUDGMENT

1 Rule. Rule made returnable forth with and heard finally by

the consent of the parties.

2 The petitioner decree holder is aggrieved by the order dated

13.3.2015 passed by the Executing Court, rejecting the

Application Exh.39, seeking Police protection/aid in RD No.8/2014.

3 I have considered the strenuous submissions of Shri Pawar,

learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri Gaware learned

advocate on behalf of the respondent.

{3} wp 929.16.odt

4 The issue is, as to whether the decree holder should be

protected by the due process of law. By the impugned order, the

Executing Court has observed that, for one cultivating season,

Police aid was granted by the same Court under section 151 of the

Civil Procedure Code. It is further observed that just because the

Court has allowed the application earlier, it would not mean that

the Court will always grant such Police aid. To say the least, I find

that the said observation did not indicate sensitivity on the part of

the Executing Court.

5 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for two

cultivating seasons, he could not cultivate his agricultural land as

he is a single male family member and cannot cultivate the land

under the threats of the respondents.

6 Mr. Gaware submits that none of the respondents have ever

created any hindrance or obstacle in the cultivation of the land by

the decree holder. His application seeking Police aid is on account

of oblique motives.

7 In my view, the Executing Court should ensure that the

decree holder is not frustrated and though the decree is in his

favour, he is unable to cultivate his agricultural land.

{4} wp 929.16.odt

8 Since Exhibit 39 was filed on 13.6.2014, the impugned

order need not be interfered into as the purpose of filing the

application for the agricultural season of 2014-2015 does not

exist.

9 Considering the above, the petitioner is allowed to file a

fresh application, in the event he apprehends obstructions in the

cultivating season of 2017-2018. If such application is filed, after

hearing all the sides, the Executing Court shall consider the said

application, on its merits and would ensure that the decree holder

is not frustrated only on account of technicalities. If the

application is filed within two weeks from today, the Executing

Court shall endeavor to decide the said application, as

expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before the 15th day

of August, 2017.

10 With the above directions, this petition is disposed of.

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE , J)

vbd