Bombay High Court
Sakharam S/O. Ganpat Solanki And ... vs Tahsildar-Cum-Mamlatdar, ... on 25 April, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale
22.wp.2607.2021.odt
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2607 OF 2021
Sakharam S/o. Ganpat Solanki and ors.
-Vs.-
Tahsildar-cum-Mamlatdar, Buldhana and ors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. S. Dhore, counsel for the petitioners
Ms Deepali Sapkal, Counsel for respondent Nos. 2,3, 4, 6 and 7
Mr K. L. Dharmadhikar, AGP for respondent No.1.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 25.04.2022
By the present writ petition, the petitioners have
challenged order dated 02.07.2021 passed by the
respondent No.1 - Tahsildar-cum-Mamlatdar whereby
during the pendency of the application filed by the
contesting respondent under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's
Courts Act, 1906 (For short 'the said Act') an order
amounting to interim relief/Temporary injunction has been
granted in favour of the contesting respondent.
2] This Court issued notice in the present petition on
27.07.2021 and directed the parties to maintain Status quo.
3] When the petition was called out for hearing the
learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Sandip Bhagvatrao Bhakare .v/s.
Santosh Mohanlal Dave and ors., reported in, 2022 (2)
Mh.L.J. 516, to contend that the respondent No.1 does not
22.wp.2607.2021.odt
have any power under the provisions of the said Act to issue
any order of interim relief amounting to a temporary
injunction in favour of the applicants. It is submitted that
the impugned order virtually grants final relief at interim
stage. It is submitted that in the said judgment this Court
has held that the Mamlatdar's Court can exercise only such
power as specified under the provisions of the said Act and
therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable.
4] The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Nos. 2, 3 4, 6 and 7 could not dispute the said position of
law brought to the notice of this Court. The other
respondents have been served but, they have chosen not to
appear before this Court.
5] This Court has perused the judgment in the case of
Sandip Bhakare (supra). The same covers the position of
law completely in favour of the petitioners. It is specifically
held that the respondent No. 1 i.e. Tahsildar-cum-Mamlatdar
under the provisions of the said Act has no power to issue an
order of temporary injunction, during the pendency of the
application under Section 5 of the said Act. The impugned
order is nothing but an order of temporary injunction,
granting interim relief to the said contesting private
respondents during the pendency of the application under
Section 5 of the said Act before the respondent No.1.
Hence, it is found that the impugned order is unsustainable.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is
set aside.
22.wp.2607.2021.odt
6] The respondent No.1 is directed to decide the
application filed by the contesting private respondents
expeditiously and in any case within a period of six weeks
from today.
7] The writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Namrata
Signed By:NAMRATA YOGESH
DHARKAR
P. A.
High Court Nagpur
Signing Date:25.04.2022 18:49
