Bombay High Court
Shri. Mukund Vishnu Ekbote (Since Decd) ... vs Daulatrao Jijaba Gaikwad And Ors on 7 May, 2024
Author: Gauri Godse
Bench: Gauri Godse
2024:BHC-AS:22256
46-wp-14893-2023+.doc
varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 14893 OF 2023
Jayshree Vishnu Ekbote alias Sheetal
Ravindra Patil and Anr ... Petitioners
vs.
Daulata Jijaba Gaikwad and Ors ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7295 OF 2014
Shri Mukund Vishnu Ekbote(since decd)
through Lrs and Ors ... Petitioners
vs.
Daulata Jijaba Gaikwad and Ors ... Respondents
Mr. R.P. Saroj, for Petitioners in WP/14893/23.
Mr. Jaydeepdeo, for Petitioners in WP/7295/14.
Mr. Suchit Chaudhari on VC for Respondent Nos. 2 to 17.
Ms. Gunjan Shah for Respondent.
Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos. 18 to 20.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATED : 7th MAY 2024
P.C. :-
1. Heard. Arguable points are raised. Hence, 'Rule'.
2. Mr. Choudhari waives notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to
Page no. 1 of 4
46-wp-14893-2023+.doc
17. Learned AGP waives notice on behalf of respondent nos. 18 to
20.
3. The basic grievance of the petitioners is that the application
filed under section 70B of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act for declaration of tenancy based on contractual tenancy
was filed without impleading petitioners as parties. Learned counsel
for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are heirs and legal
representatives of the original holders/landlords i.e. Trimbak
Narayan Ekbote. He submits that in the revenue record, the names
of the petitioners were entered in the other rights columns as heirs
and legal representatives. However, respondent no.1 chose not to
implead the petitioners as necessary parties. Learned counsel for
the petitioners further submits that respondent no.1 is claiming
contractual tenancy through pre-deceasor in title of the petitioners.
The impugned order has affected the petitioners right, title and
interest in the property to which they are entitled through their father.
He therefore submits that during the pendency of the petition,
interim protection may be granted as prayed in prayer clause (d).
4. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 raises preliminary
objection that the petitions suffer from delay and latches. He
submits that though the petitioners were aware about the
Page no. 2 of 4
46-wp-14893-2023+.doc
proceedings, they have deliberately filed the petitions at a belated
stage to defeat the rights of respondent no.1. To support his
submissions, he relied upon affidavit-in-reply and copy of notice
issued by the learned Tahsildar on the application under section
32-O. He submits that the notice was issued to the petitioners on
18th September 2008. He therefore submits that though they were
aware about the orders they did not take any steps to challenge the
declaration passed in favour of respondent no.1. He submits that
petitioners' family members contested the proceedings and thus
after failing in the challenge, present petition is filed through the
petitioners making a grievance regarding declaration passed in
favour of respondent no.1.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in response to the
preliminary objections submits that there is affidavit-in-rejoinder filed
by the petitioners specifically stating they were never served with
the notice dated 18th September 2008.
6. I have perused the papers. Except for the notice annexed at
Exhibit-4 to the affidavit-in-reply, no other document is shown to me
in support of the submissions, that the petitioners were aware about
the proceedings.
7. In the present case, respondent no.1 is claiming contractual
Page no. 3 of 4
46-wp-14893-2023+.doc
tenancy. Hence, prima-facie, I am of the view that the petitioners
being heirs and legal representatives of the original landlord, they
were necessary parties to the proceedings under section 70B.
Hence, during the pendency of the petition, there will be interim stay
in terms of prayer clause (d), which reads as under:
"d. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the aforesaid Writ
Petition, stay the execution operation and implementation of
the Judgment and Order dated 05.03.2014 passed by the
Learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in
Revision Application No. TNC/REV/96/2006/P as well as the
Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2006, passed by the Learned
Sub Divisional Officer, Bhor Sub Division, Pune in Tenancy
Appeal No. 1 of 2004 as well as the Judgment and Order dated
19.11.2003 passed by the Learned Tahsildar, Purandar, in
Application below Section 70B bearing No.
K/K/TENANCY/70B/SR/114/2000."
WRIT PETITION NO. 7295 OF 2014
8. Heard.
9. Rule.
10. To be heard alongwith Writ Petition No. 14893 of 2023.
(GAURI GODSE, J.)
Page no. 4 of 4
