Bombay High Court
Vishal Bapusaheb Gulve vs The Range Forest Officer ... on 25 July, 2017
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
(Judgment) (1) W.P. No. 09209 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Writ Petition No. 09209 of 2017
District : Ahmednagar
Vishal Bapusaheb Gulve,
Age : 49 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Ozar, Taluka Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner.
versus
1. The Range Forest Officer,
Division-1, Sangamner,
having its office at Sangamner,
Taluka Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Collector,
Ahmednagar,
District Ahmednagar.
3. The Tahsildar,
Sangamner,
Taluka Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar.
4. The Kamgar Talathi,
of Village Ozar,
Taluka Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar. .. Respondents.
...........
Mr. S.K. Shinde, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.P. Tiwari, Assistant Government Pleader, for
respondents no.01 to 04.
...........
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 25TH JULY 2017
(Judgment) (2) W.P. No. 09209 of 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
01. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
assistant government pleader for respondents.
02. The petitioner aggrieved by order passed by the Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Sangamner, dated 04th January, 2017,
rejecting application - exhibit 45 in regular civil suit no. 840 of 2013,
is before this court.
03. Exhibit 45 was an application for appointment of court
commissioner pursuant to provisions of order XXVI rule 9 of the code
of civil procedure, 1908.
04. The petitioner who is plaintiff in the suit, claims that
property bearing gut no. 210/1 admeasuring 1 Hectare, 44 R.
situated at village Ozar (kd.), Taluka Sangamner, District
Ahmednagar, is a government property being occupied since 1955-
56 by their ancestors. The property has since then been occupied by
ancestors of the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that,
lot of expenses have been incurred in development of the land.
Around 1986, a scheme had been implemented in the village,
however, Talathi did not take entries of petitioner's name in
cultivation column although land was irrigated and petitioner was
(Judgment) (3) W.P. No. 09209 of 2017
taking crops in the land. He had laid pipeline having length of 1000
feet. The petitioner is in possession of the land, yet same has been
denied in the written statement. In order to bring forth before the
court, factual position, it would be expedient that a court
commissioner is appointed to verify the actual position. With
reference to certain judgments, the application was sought to be
justified by the present petitioner. The application was strongly
resisted on behalf of defendants and the court has rejected the
application - Exhibit 45.
05. The court in paragraphs no.10, 11 and 12 appears to
have considered relevant aspects. The court has recorded that the
suit is for declaration of ownership, mandatory injunction and
injunction. The court has further recorded that the evidence has
been closed and the matter is at the stage of final arguments.
Several adjournments have been sought and thereafter application
has been filed. The court has further observed that the main
purpose underlying application appears to bring on record evidence
by way of court commissioner which precisely is not function of the
commission.
06. Having regard to the aforesaid, it does not appear to be a
case which requires intervention in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
(Judgment) (4) W.P. No. 09209 of 2017
07. The writ petition, as such, is dismissed. However, it
would be open for the petitioner to resort to section 105 of the code
of civil procedure, 1908, if occasion for the same arises.
( Sunil P. Deshmukh )
JUDGE
...........
puranik / WP9209.17
