Bombay High Court
Smt. Janabai Wd/O Kawadu Wankhede ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Revenue ... on 6 April, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
wp 2240.23. 1/3 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.2240/2023
Smt. Janabai and another V State of Maharashtra and others
***********************************************************************************
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
***********************************************************************************
Mr. R.V. Gaikawad, Adv for petitioners.
Mrs. Barabde, AGP for resp. nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM : AVINASH G GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 06-04-2023
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.
2. The petition challenges the order dated
10-11-22 (page 45) by which the application Exh 167
filed before the Executing Court to frame the issue of
tenancy in respect of the property in possession of the
petitioners and to refer the same to the Tenancy
Tahsildar has been rejected.
3. The impugned order, in para 11, recorded
the following position (page 41).
"11. Now it is necessary to consider the
order passed by Tahsildar in proceeding filed by
judgment debtors. Record shows that Judgment
debtor namely- Waman Suryabhan Dhabarde,
Pandurang Keshvrao Urkudkar, Kavdu Sonba
Wankhede (through LR's-present applicant) filed
Tenancy case before Tahsildar. The proceeding
filed by Janabai before Tahsildar, Samudrapur
wp 2240.23. 2/3 4
was bearing Tenancy Case No.1/59(11/94-95).
Waman and Pandurang had also filed Tenancy
case before Tahsildar. Tahsildar, Samudrapur by
his order dated 21/06/2022 rejected the
application filed by Janabai. The application filed
by Janabai and other LR's was rejected as they
were not found to be the tenant of the suit
property. Only the application of judgment
debtor-Waman was allowed by the concerned
authority, Janabai and other LR's of Kavdu-
Judgment debtor No.9 referred revision against
the order of Tahsildar before Sub Divisional
Officer, Hinganghat. The Revision Appeal is
bearing no.2/59-11/02-03. On 24/03/2005, the
sub Divisional Officer, Hinganghat dismissed the
appeal, against the order passed by Tahsildar
rejecting the claim of Janabai. Revision was
preferred by decree holder against the order
passed by Tahsildar in tenancy case filed by
Waman. In revision, Sub Divisional Officer set
aside the order of Tahsildar and remanded the
same for deciding the issue afresh. Waman
preferred Revision before the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal being Tenancy Revision TEN/B/
1/2006. The revision was dismissed by MRT on
08/04/2013 but the possession of Waman was
protected. Janabai also filed writ petition bearing
no.1076 of 2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of
Bombay (Nagpur Bench). The Copy of the order
of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay is filed below
list exhibit 170. The writ petition filed by Janabai
was rejected on the ground of maintainability."
4. Except for the position that WP No.1076/14
filed by petitioner no.1/Janabai is still pending, the
above position is not disputed by Mr. Gaikwad, learned
Counsel for the petitioners. The filing of the application
wp 2240.23. 3/3 4
at Exh 167, therefore has to be viewed in the context of
the above said situation, inasmuch as since the question
of tenancy was already decided by the Tahsildar, the
question of framing the said issue again and sending it
to the Tenancy Tahsildar for determination did not arise
at all.
5. That being the position, I am not inclined to
interfere in the order impugned in this petition. The
petition is dismissed. No costs.
6. Needles to say that the dismissal of present
petition would not come in the way of the petitioners
for challenging the issuance of warrant of possession in
appropriate proceedings.
JUDGE
Deshmukh
