Baliram Babu Mane And Others vs Parwatibai Babasaheb Gaiwal And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 494 Bom

                                                                               wp3262.16.doc
                                            1


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD 

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 3262 OF 2016     

1         Baliram s/o Babu Mane
          age 85 years, occ. Agriculture
          r/o Tadsonna, Tq. & dist. Beed

2         Babu s/o Baliram Mane
          age 41 years, occ. Agriculture
          r/o Tadsonna, Tq. &  Dist. Beed

3         Babasaheb s/o Babu Mane
          age major, occ. Agriculture
          r/o Tadsonna, Tq. & Dist. Beed

4         Rameshwar s/o Baliram Mane
          age major, occ. Agril
          r/o Tadsonna, Tq. & Dist. Beed                             .. PETITIONERS

VERSUS
 
1         Parwatibai w/o Babasaheb Gaikwal
          age major, occ. Agri & household
          r/o Nababpur, Tq. Wadwani
          Dist. Beed

2         Achut s/o Vishwanath Mane
          age 59 years, occ. Agril
          r/o Tadsonna, Tq. & Dist. Beed

3         Kausabai w/o Janikiram Pawade
          age major, occ. Agril
          r/o Pawade Hadgaon
          Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani

4         The District Collector, Beed
          Tq. & Dist. Beed

5         The Tahsildar Beed
          Tq. & Dist. Beed

6         The Circle Officer Pimpalner Division
          Tq. & Dist. Beed                                         .. RESPONDENTS

Mr.   P.C.   Mayure,   advocate   holding   for   Mr.   S.R.   Shirsat,   advocate   for 
petitioners.
Mr. S.R. Yadav Lonikar, AGP for respondents no. 4 to 6.
Mr. V.B. Jadhav, advocate for respondent no. 3. 




    ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2017                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2017 00:56:52 :::
                                                                                           wp3262.16.doc
                                                     2


                                                      =====

                                                           CORAM :  S. B. SHUKRE, J.  

                                                           DATE    :  6th  MARCH,  2017. 
 
ORAL JUDGMENT  :


1.         Rule.  Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

3. Vide order passed on 14th June, 2011, it appears that some changes

have been made which apparently have an effect of modifying the decree. It

is true as submitted by learned counsel for the respective parties that gat

no. 77 has been sold out. It is also true that decree which has been passed

on 19th January, 2006 and which has been confirmed by this Court in

second appeal, is required to be executed to an extent it is executable. If

some part of the decree cannot be executed in terms of decree, an alternate

way of executing the decree with the consent of the parties can also be

considered by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer. But, without such

consultation it may not be appropriate to make some alterations which

would apparently have an effect to correct the decree. If parties are

agreeable to it, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer would be at liberty to

execute the decree even by resolving the alternate way or otherwise, he shall

be at liberty to execute the decree only to an extent it is executable. As

regards unexecutable part of the decree, the matter should be certainly

referred to the executing Court for obtaining appropriate order.

4. In this view of the matter, the order dated 14 th June,2011 is quashed

wp3262.16.doc

and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Sub-Divisional

Officer for consideration afresh and issuing necessary directions to the Naib

Tahsildar, Beed. Parties to appear before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer

on 15th March, 2017 at 11.00 am for reconsideration of the matter and its

decision in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made

hereinabove. The matter shall be decided within one month from the date of

appearance of the parties. The amount deposited here be transferred to the

executing Court for appropriate consideration. Rule made absolute in above

terms. No costs.

( S. B. SHUKRE ) JUDGE

dyb