Sunday, 03, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Dhanraj Govind ... vs The State Of Maharashtra ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2515 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 2515 Bom
Judgement Date : 12 May, 2017

Bombay High Court
Dhanraj Govind ... vs The State Of Maharashtra ... on 12 May, 2017
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
                                    1                     WP-1712.97.doc


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

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 1712 OF 1997



          Dhanraj s/o Govind Jadhav (died)
          through legal heirs :-

 1A-      Smt. Kamal w/o Dhanraj Jadhav,
          Age major, occup. Agriculture,
          r/o Savli Vihir (kh.) Tq. Kopargaon,
          District Ahmednagar

 1-B      Dattu s/o Dhanraj Jadhav,
          Age 15 years, u/g of Kamal w/o
          Dhanraj Jadhav, occup. r/o as above

 1-C      Ashok Dhanraj Jadhav,
          Age 8 years, u/g of Kamal w/o
          Dhanraj Jadhav, occup. & r/o as above

 1-D      Miss Bharti s/o Dhanraj Jadhav,
          Age 1 year, u/g of Kamalbai w/o
          Dhanraj, occup. and r/o as above

 2-       Machindra s/o Govind Jadhav,
          Age 27 years, occup. Agriculture,
          r/o as above

 3-      Jalindar s/o Govind Jadhav
         23 years occu. Agriculture
         r/o as above.

 4-       Smt. Bhikabai w/o Govind Jadhav
          Age 54 years occu. Agriculture
          r/o as above.

                                   versus

 1-       The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary
          copy served on Govt. Pleader,
          High Court Aurangabad.




::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2017 00:33:36 :::
                                   2                   WP-1712.97.doc


 2-       Saw Sevantabi w/o Bapurao Dandwate,
          Age 58 years occu. Agriculture
          r/o Savali, Vihir (kh.) Tq.
          Kopargaon District Ahmednagar.

 3-       Baburao s/o Namdeo Dandwate (died)
          through his L.Rs.

          3-A) Suryabhan s/o Baburao Dandwate,
               Age 50 years, occ : Agril.,
               R/o Rahata, Tqa. Kopargaon,
               District : Ahmednagar.

          3-B) Bhaskar s/o Baburao Dandwate,
               Age 52 years, occ : Agril.,
               R/o as above.

          3-C) Ravnath s/o Baburao dandwate,
               Age 42 years, occ : Agril.,
               R/o : As above.

          3-D) Vasant s/o Baburao Dandwate,
               Age 40 years, occ & R/o : As above

          3-E) Vinayak s/o Baburao dandwate,
               Age 38 yeatrs, occ & R/o As above.

          3-F) Bharat s/o Baburao Dandwate,
               Age 35 years, occ & R/o : As above.

          (dismissed against respondent nos. 3A to 3F
          dismissed as per court's order dated 11-1-2001 for
          non payment of Bhatta)

 4-       Receiver,
          S. B. Choudhari, Age : Major
          Occu. Advocate, R/o Nandurki Tq. Kopargaon
          District Ahmednagar
                           .......

 Mr. S. K. Adkine, Advocate for petitioners
 Mrs. S. S. Raut, Assit. Govt. Pleader for respondent no. 1




::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2017              ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2017 00:33:36 :::
                                             3                    WP-1712.97.doc




                                 CORAM :         SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
                                 DATE :          12th May, 2017


 ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Adkine

and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent

no. 1 Mrs. Raut.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners

that a partnership had been entered into among the

petitioners and respondents no. 2 and 3 for a period of ten

years under which the concerned respondents were

supposed to cultivate lands for about ten years bearing all

the expenses.

3. Around 1976, proceedings bearing regular civil suit

no. 644 of 1976 for injunction had been filed by

respondents no. 2 and 3 in this writ petition against

petitioners in respect of land bearing survey no. 44 to the

extent of 9 hectare, 44 aar. The suit had been ex-parte

decreed on 25-07-1977 by civil judge, junior division,

Kopargaon.

4 WP-1712.97.doc

4. After expiry of period of ten years, possession had

been demanded by petitioners but respondents refused. For

execution of aforesaid ex-parte decree, regular darkhast no.

23 of 1987 had been filed by the respondents. Present

petitioners had objected to said regular darkhast, stating

that no share was given to them nor respondents had

deposited crop value. In the circumstances, under an order

passed on 04-04-1987, the court appointed receiver and

from time to time the receiver was getting changed.

5. An application, around 1993, had been moved by

petitioners for disposal of regular darkhast, referring to

negligence on the part of respondents and receiver in

cultivation of land etc.

6. While petitioners' application raising objection for

continuation of regular darkhast was rejected under an

order dated 03-09-1993, the petitioners had challenged

said rejection before this court in civil revision application

no. 1341 of 1993.

7. In the meanwhile, the petitioners had moved civil

court by instituting regular civil suit no. 185 of 1988 for

dissolution of partnership and upon response to the same

5 WP-1712.97.doc

by respondents through their written statement, certain

issues had arisen, inter alia, defendant no. 2 in said suit

claiming to be tenant over suit land, Said issue accordingly

had been framed and referred to tenancy tribunal. The

tenancy tribunal decided the issue in favour of defendant

no. 2, appeal there-against has failed and as such, the

matter is pending at petitioners' instance in writ petition no.

619 of 2002.

8. During all this, Mr. Adkine submits, the concerned

lands were not being cultivated which has been causing

irreparable loss to the petitioners. Respondents are

interested in prolonging the matter. They had filed several

false complaints against the petitioners and through

receiver as well, inter alia, one before the court, alleging that

the petitioners are obstructing cultivation of the lands by

the receiver and further under an application dated 22-01-

1997 (Exhibit-178) in regular darkhast no. 23 of 1987

sought police protection to the receiver for harvesting crops

which came to be granted under an order dated 05-04-

1997, which is subject-matter of present writ petition.

                                           6                    WP-1712.97.doc


 9.       Learned         counsel   Mr.   Adkine     fairly     states       that

application which pertains to then standing crops, had in

fact been not by the receiver but was by the decree holders

and efficacy of the same by now is over.

10. Looking at the tenor of the application and that order

dated 05-04-1997 allowing the same had limited efficacy.

No interim relief had been granted in writ petition. The

purpose underlying the writ petition now can hardly be met

with.

11. Looking at the whole scenario and the purpose for

which application (Exhibit 178) had been filed, after a huge

passage of time, as fairly stated by learned counsel for the

writ petitioner, the purpose appears to be inefficacious. In

the process, writ petition does not appear to carry any

substance after such a huge gap of time.

12. Writ petition, as such, stands disposed of.

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JUDGE

pnd

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter