Bombay High Court
Mohd Sirajuddin Mohd Iqbaluddin ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 6 June, 2018
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 WP 866-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No. 866 of 2016
Urmila W/o Dhananjaya Gharmalkar
age 68 years occupation agriculture
R/o Shingnapur Taluka Kopargaon District Ahmednagar
Through her General Power of attorney Dhananjaya Narayan
Gharmalkar, age 75 yers occupation & R/o as above.
...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Saroj Prakashchand Thole,
age 32 years occupation Agriculture and business
R/o opposie Panchayat Samiti, Kopargaon
Taluka Kopargaon District Ahmednagar
2. Narendrakumar S/o Harbanslal Dank,
age 45 years occupation and R/o as above
3. Meena Nandkishor Papdeja,
age 35 years occupation & R/o as above.
4. Macchindra S/o Babrao Chandar,
age 55 yuears occupation Agriculture
R/o Khirdi Ganesh Taluka Kopargaon Dist. Ahmednagar
5. Chandrakant S/o Baburao Chandar,
age 58 years occupation & R/o as above.
6. Shobhatai Macchindra Sanwatsarkar,
age 458 years occupation agriculture
R/o Shingnapur Taluka Kopargaon Dist. Ahmednagar,.
7. Macchindra S/o Kashinath Sanwatsarkar,
age 52 yers occupation & R/o as above.
8. Baban S/o Rangnath Dhokrat,
age 55 yers occupation & R/o as above. ...Respondents
Mr Milind M. Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for petitioner
::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2018 00:49:25 :::
2 WP 866-2016
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 6th June, 2018
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The civil suit
has been instituted seeking measurement of suit land and
thereupon, during measurement if encroachment is found, the
same be removed and for fixation of boundaries and possession of
plaintiff may not be disturbed. Defendants have filed their written
statement referring to that they have no particular objection for
measurement of plaintiff's and defendants' lands and in case any
encroachment on plaintiff's land is found on their behalf, the same
may be removed. However, in case it is found that plaintiff has
encroached upon their land, right be reserved for them to get back
such encroached land.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that
appalication accodingly had been moved for measurement by the
Taluka Inspector of Land Records for fixation of boundaries and
preparation of bunds and same has not been objected to by
defendants at any time including in their written statement. He
contends that the learned Judge has straight away rejected the
request of plaintiff/petitioner for measurement of suit land, fixation
of boundaries, preparation of bunds. He submits that some
analogy is sought to be drawn from the aspects which are not
germane like practice being followed, which has no relevance to
3 WP 866-2016
the facts and circumstances of the present case. From the
position, it emerges that parties do not have any particular
objection for measurement of land by the Taluka Inspector of Land
Records for fixing boundaries i.e. to the relief claimed under
Prayer Clause (A) in the plaint and appears to be not objected to by
the defendants in their written statement. Their conduct in
present petition is also reflective of the position that they have no
objection for grant of application as prayed for by the plaintiff and
had not opposed the same and since respondents/defendants have
not appeared in the writ petition despite service in 2016. As such,
there is suficient depiction that they have no objection for allowing
writ petition.
3. In view of aforesaid, having regard to the peculiar
aspects involved in the matter, the writ petition is allowed in terms
of Prayer Clause "B".
( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH )
JUDGE.
Madkar
