Bombay High Court
Vinay Ramkrushna Saoji vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ... on 8 March, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 wp4071.13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4071 OF 2013
(VINAY RAMKRUSHNA SAOJI...VS.. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF
REVENUE & FORESTS & OTH.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.M.Ghare, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri S.P.Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 & 11.
Shri D.R.Khapre, Advocate for Respondent No.7.
Shri S.R.Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.8.
Shri V.K.Paliwal, Advocate for Respondent No.9.
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 08, 2021.
1. This Court by order dated 19 th November, 2018
called for R & P relating to the conduct of the auction. The
matter was adjourned for three weeks.
2. The Registry sent communication for calling R & P
from Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Mehkar and
Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Mehkar, District : Buldana.
The record is not yet received.
3. We have carefully considered the designations of
the respondents to the present petition. Since the prayer in
the application calling for R & P is vague and the respondents
are not properly described, record of proceedings in relation
to measurement of land is not received. We have considered
the challenge in the writ petition and we called upon the
parties to argue the petition on merits.
2 wp4071.13.odt
4. By this petition auction purchaser who purchased
the property in dispute in auction under Rule 107 of the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Rules of 1961") has challenged refusal on
the part of the Revenue Authorities to deliver possession to
the auction purchaser in pursuance of the Sale Certificate
issued by Special Recovery Officer appointed under Section
156 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1960").
5. The case of the petitioner in substance is that
once the proceedings under Rule 107 of the Rules of 1961
holding auction have attained finality up to this Court, the
authorities under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code while measuring the land could not have
gone into the validity of the auction. The said authorities had
no option but to deliver possession of the property in dispute
to the petitioner.
6. This Court on 14th January 2015 had disposed of
the present petition by directing the respondent No.4-
Tahsildar to proceed in accordance with law to place the
petitioner in possession of the land.
7. After the Writ Petition was disposed of, the
respondent No.8 filed an application for recalling the order
dated 14th January 2015 along with the application for
condonation of delay.
Thereafter on 13th March 2015 this Court
recorded a statement on behalf of the petitioner that the
petitioner has received possession of the land in dispute on 9 th
3 wp4071.13.odt
March 2015 and this Court by recording the said statement
directed the parties to maintain status-quo as of 13 th March
2015.
By order dated 29 th October 2015 this Court
recalled its judgment dated 14th January 2015 and restored
Writ Petition No.4071 of 2013 back on its file and fresh
notice was issued to the un-served respondents.
This Court by order dated 25 th February 2016
issued Rule in the present petition and taking into
consideration the affidavit filed by respondent No.4-Tahsildar,
it was directed that the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 shall not
disturb possession of the petitioner during pendency of the
petition.
8. Today, when the matter is called out, the learned
Advocate for the petitioner invited our attention to the
affidavit filed by the respondent No.4-Tahsildar Shri. Nirbhay
Subhash Jain, who has stated in paragraph No.6 by way of
additional submission that the petitioner has been placed in
possession of the land in dispute on 9th March 2015.
9. The original dispute before the Taluka Inspector
of Land Records arose because of failure to deliver possession
in pursuance of the auction held under Rule 107 of the Rules
of 1961. In view of the affidavit filed by the respondent No.4-
Tahsildar, we are satisfied that the petitioner has been placed
in possession of the land in dispute in pursuance of the
auction held under Rule 107 of the Rules of 1961, nothing
remains to be adjudicated in the present petition.
4 wp4071.13.odt
10. The facts on record reveal that respondent No.8
had purchased property in dispute in an auction sale by the
authorities under the Act of 1960. Once the auction sale is
confirmed by the Special Recovery Officer under Rule 107 of
the Act of 1960, the title of the property vests with the
auction purchaser namely the petitioner. Once the auction
purchaser (present petitioner) has become absolute owner of
the property, the borrower had no title to convey in favour of
the respondent No.8.
In the above facts, Shri A.M.Ghare, learned
Advocate for the petitioner, prayed that since the auction
purchaser has been kept away from the possession of the land
till 6th March 2015. The auction took place in the year 2006
and even thereafter the auction purchaser has to proceed with
the present writ petition and other litigations instituted for
and on behalf of the borrowers, he submitted that this Court
should impose exemplary costs on the respondent No.8 and
Respondent No.9.
11. Shri S.R.Deshpande, learned Advocate for the
respondent No.8 submitted that there is no prayer in the writ
petition seeking costs therefore, the costs cannot be imposed
on the respondent No.8.
12. We have considered the submission of the
petitioner and the Advocate for the respondent No.8. We are
satisfied that though the auction was held in the year 2006,
5 wp4071.13.odt
till 2015 possession of the property, which is an agricultural
land, was not delivered to the auction purchaser and the
proceedings lingered on till 2021. In our view, third party
auction purchaser needs to be protected from frivolous and
vexatious pleas to create obstacle in delivery of the
possession.
13. A distinction needs to be drawn between decree
holder auction purchaser and third party auction purchaser.
It is the duty of the Court to protect third party auction
purchaser from frivolous pleas while delivering possession in
his favour otherwise the ordinary citizen will not venture into
the auction proceedings to purchase the property through
Court Auction or through auction by the statutory authorities.
14. In our view, the auction purchaser who has
litigated from 2006 till 2021 needs to be compensated for the
act of the respondent Nos. 8 and respondent No.9. We,
therefore, direct respondent No.8-Madhav Namdeo Dalvi and
respondent No.9-Amol Bhimrao Kankal to pay an amount of
Rupees Twenty Five Thousand each to the petitioner, within
a period of four weeks from today.
15. In case of failure to pay the amount of costs,
within a period of four weeks from today, the petitioner will
be at liberty to recover the said costs as per Rules 21 and 24
of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side
Rules, 1960.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
6 wp4071.13.odt
CIVIL APPLN.NO.2537/2015.
In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, the
application praying for restitution of the parties has become
infructuous, hence, it is disposed of.
(AMIT B. BORKAR, J) ( Z.A.HAQ, J.)
RRaut..
