Tanaji Premraj Gunjal (Died) Thr. Lrs ... vs Agricultural Produce Market Committee ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 11941 Bom

Bombay High Court

Tanaji Premraj Gunjal (Died) Thr. Lrs ... vs Agricultural Produce Market Committee ... on 30 November, 2023

Author: S. G. Mehare

Bench: S. G. Mehare

                                    1                               15-AO-65-23.odt



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.65 OF 2023
                      WITH CA/14062/2023 IN AO/65/2023

     TANAJI PREMRAJ GUNJAL (DIED) THR. LRS. MEERABAI TANAJI
                       GUNJAL AND OTHERS
                             VERSUS
     AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE JADHAVWADI
                  THR.SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                ...
        Advocates for Appellants : Mr. B. N. Patil along with
                                    Mr. Krishna P. Rodge
                                ...
                                        CORAM :        S. G. MEHARE, J.

                                        DATE       : 30-11-2023
PER COURT :-

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. The appeal is against the remand order of the learned first

Appellate Court. The respondents did not contest the suit. Hence,

the first Appellate Court granted them opportunity to contest the

suit on merits.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the

copy of the award which was probably relied on by the

respondents was available on record. That document was the crux

of the dispute to determine how much land was acquired and how

much land was remained not acquired. It seems that the relevant

material was before the first Appellate Court. He could have

decided the appeal on merits. However, instead of deciding the

appeal on merits, order remanding the matter is passed.

2 15-AO-65-23.odt

4. Perusal of the judgment and decree of the court of first

instance reveals that the present appellants/original plaintiffs have

a positive case that the respondents have acquired 3 Hectares 15

R land out of Gat No.8 total admeasuring 6 Hectares 35 R and

remaining land 2 Hectares 12 R was not acquired. The copy of the

award was placed before the court of first instance. Considering

the nature of the dispute, it appears that it was simply about area

acquired and area remained. In the circumstances, the matter

may be considered to ascertain to what extent the respondents

acquired the land out of Gat No.8. The issue appears to be very

small. Hence, it would be appropriate to issue notice before

admission to the respondents.

5. Issue notices before admission to the respondents,

returnable on 08.12.2023.

( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE

rrd