Bombay High Court
Kisan Sahadu Lambhade (Since ... vs The Member, Maha Revenue Tribunal ... on 28 September, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
lpa86.06 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 86 OF 2006
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 962 OF 1998
Kisan s/o Sahadu Lambhade
(since deceased through LRs)
1. Tukaram s/o Kisan Lambhade,
aged 70 years.
2. Narayan s/o Kisan Lambhade,
aged 48 years.
3. Vitthal s/o Kisan Lambhade,
aged 57 years.
All residents of Ukalipen, Tq. and
District - Washim.
4. Mrs. Shantabai w/o Tulshiram
Gwande, aged 65 years, r/o
Gondegoan, Tq. & District -
Washim.
5. Mrs. Kantabai w/o Kisan Viskar,
aged 55 years, r/o Dhangarwadi,
Tq. Shengoan, Dist. Hingoli.
6. Jijabai w/o Ramkrushna Mukhmade,
aged 51 years, r/o Wanoja, Tq.
Mangrulpir, District - Washim. ... APPELLANTS
Versus
1. The Member,
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
Nagpur.
2. Bhagwan Panduji Lande (since
::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 01:45:50 :::
lpa86.06 2
deceased through his LRs)
a) Atram s/o Bhagwan Lande,
Aged - adult.
(Since deceased through LRs)
2(a-1) Smt. Babitai wd/o Atmaram
Lande, aged about 55 years,
occupation - Household work.
(a-2) Shri Vijay s/o Atmaram Lande,
age 25 years, occ. Cultivation.
Both Nos. (a-1) and (a-2) r/o At & Post
Ukali Pen, Tq. & District - Washim.
(a-3) Sau. Chhaya Vitthal Pable,
c/o Vitthal Narayan Pable,
Aai Mangal Karyalaya, Balaji
Nagar, Bhag No. 2, Shikshak
Colony, Karanja, Tq. Karanja,
District - Washim.
(a-4) Sau. Rekha Ramrao Sakhare,
aged about 31 years, occ.
Household, r/o Gogari, Post
Shelu Bazar, Tq. Mangrulpir,
District - Washim.
(a-5) Sau. Baii (Vrunda) Kailas Borkar,
aged about 33 years, occupation
Household, r/o Vrundawan
Colony, Ughada Mahadeo, Uttares
Karegaon Road, Parbhani, Tq. &
District - Parbhani
b) Parashram Bhagwan Lande,
Aged - adult.
c) Arun Bhagwan Lande, Aged - adult.
All agriculturist, r/o Ukalipen, Tq. &
District - Washim.
::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 01:45:50 :::
lpa86.06 3
d) Sau. Janabai Pudlik Lambhade,
aged - adult, r/o Pardi Takmore,
Tq. & District - Washim.
e) Sou. Geetabai Ramesh Kohre ... (Deleted)
2-e) Sau. Geetabai Ramesh Mohare,
Age - adult, r/o Kurala, Post -
Dawha, Tq. Malegaon,
District - Washim.
f) Sou. Shobhabai w/o Bhikaji
Lambhade, adult, r/o Shelu Bazar,
Tq. Mangrulpir, District - Washim.
g) Sou. Shardabai w/o Bhagwantrao
Gore. ... (Dismissed as abated)
2-h) Shashikala Govindrao Lande.
2-i) Shriram Govindrao Lande.
2-j) Kailash Govindrao Lande.
All r/o Ukalipen Tq. & Dist. Washim.
k) Ganga Sopan Panbhare,
Adult, r/o Wara Jahagir,
Tq. & District - Washim.
l) Yamuna Keshao Khorne,
Adult, Anregoan, Tq. Mehekar,
District - Buldhana (LRs of
original Respondent No. 1.) ... RESPONDENTS
Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri N.S. Rao, AGP for respondent No. 1.
Shri R.S. Kurekar, Advocate for respondent No. 2 (b & c), (d to f)
and (h to l).
.....
::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 01:45:50 :::
lpa86.06 4
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
SEPTEMBER 28, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Heard Shri A.M. Ghare, learned counsel for the
appellant, Shri N.S. Rao, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 and
Shri R.S. Kurekar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 (b & c),
(d to f) and (h to l).
2. This Letters Patent Appeal was heard for some time
on 06.07.2017 and then the following order was passed :
"CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & ROHIT B. DEO, JJ.
DATED : JULY 6, 2017.
Matter is part-heard.
However, Mr. A.M. Ghare, learned Counsel for
appellants, Mr. A.V. Palshikar, learned A.G.P. for respondent
no. 1 and Mr. R.S. Kurekar, learned Counsel for other
respondents, upon instructions state that the matter may be
placed before the Lok Adalat scheduled to be held on
8.7.2017, so that the controversy may be resolved once for all.
Looking to the nature of controversy, we also
find it proper.
List the matter accordingly before the said Lok
Adalat.
Parties waive separate notice of listing of the
matter on 8.7.2017.
Judge Judge"
3. Accordingly, the parties appeared before Lok Adalat
on 08.07.2017. It appears that some efforts were made but
then reconciliation was not possible. Therefore, the matter has
been placed again for further consideration. However, both
counsel submit that Second Appeal filed by present appellant
against civil adjudication of rights in relation to suit property is
very much pending. They submit that if Second Appeal is
allowed, present respondent No. 2 (through legal heirs) does
not get any right to suit field. However, if it is dismissed then
only subject to further challenge, his right subsists. They
submit that if Second Appeal is dismissed, appellant shall place
legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 2 in joint possession
with himself, subject to further challenges.
4. A perusal of impugned judgment dated 31.01.2006
delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ
Petition No. 962 of 1998 shows that there present respondent is
found entitled to be placed in possession jointly with present
appellant because of acquiring joint ownership to tenanted
property under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter
referred to as 1958 Act).
5. The effort of the appellant before the learned Single
Judge was to urge that declaration of entitlement to joint
ownership does not result in entitlement to be placed in
possession and, therefore, remedy of Summary eviction under
Section 120 of 1958 Act, is not available. The learned Single
Judge has found it inequitable to accept it. Same contention
has been raised in present appeal.
6. In civil litigation, present appellant has relied upon
Will which constitutes him full owner of suit field. In other
words, it disentitles respondent No. 2 to any share therein. If
the Will is upheld, respondent No. 2 is not entitled to claim
anything.
7. In this backdrop, we find the above suggestion of
the parties justified. Accordingly, we record that if Second
Appeal is dismissed, the appellant shall permit legal heirs of
respondent No. 2 to enter and enjoy possession jointly with him
of the suit field, without any objection and without insisting for
filing of separate proceedings for restoration of possession.
This shall be without prejudice to his right to challenge that
adjudication before the appropriate forum as per law.
8. Accordingly, we dispose of the present Letters
Patent Appeal. However, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
