Bombay High Court
Ambadas Laxman Khanzode vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 26 February, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:2271
1 sa544.06.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
SECOND APPEAL NO.544 OF 2006
Ambadas Laxman Khanzode
Amended as per
Court's order dated (dead) Through LRs
08.05.2014. Dr. Mohini Ashok Ganu
Aged about 53 years, Occ: Professional/Doctor,
R/o Sanjeevan Hospital, Majge Nagar,
Kava Road, Latur-413512
District Latur. .....APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Collector,
Chandrapur.
2. Sub-Divisional Officer,
Rajura, Distt. Chandrapur.
3. Tahsildar, Rajura
Distt. Chandrapur.
4. Talathi of Soza Pandarpauni,
Tah. Rajura, Distt. Chandrapur. ...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for appellant.
Ms M.R. Kavimandan, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- M.W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATED :- 26.02.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT:
. The appeal takes an exception to the judgment of Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur in Regular Civil Suit No.50 of
2 sa544.06.odt
1986, whereby the appellant was non-suited on the point that the
suit is barred by law of limitation. The judgment of the trial Court
was confirmed by the first appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal
No.19 of 1997.
2. By the order dated 17.03.2008, the following
substantial question of law came to be framed :
"Whether the suit could have been said to be barred by
limitation in view of the provisions contained in Section
138(4) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966?"
3. For answering the substantial question of law, it is not
necessary to go into the matrix of the case in detail, it will suffice to
say that the appellant filed a suit for declaration and injunction
praying for the following relief:
"a) that it be declared that the plaintiff is the owner of land
bearing old S.No.48, new survey No.16 having an area of 8
acres and 23 gunthas.
b) that it be further declared that the reduction of plaintiff's
area from 8 acres 29 gunthas to 7 acres 4 gunthas is illegal,
unjust and improper.
c) that a decree for mandatory injunction directing the
defendants to correct the revenue records by showing the
area of 8 acres 29 gunthas in respect S.No.16 may kindly be
passed.
C-A) It be declared that the plaintiff is the owner of land
shown by Letters " " in general and " " in
particulars in the plaint map. The defendants be restrained
3 sa544.06.odt
from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the land
shown by Letters " " in the plaint map.
d) that a decree for permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from interfering with the possession of the
plaintiff over 8 acres and 29 gunthas of land covered by old
survey No.48 and now survey no.16 of mouza Chandvahi
may kindly be passed against the Defendants.
e) the cost of the suit may kindly be saddled on the
defendants and;
f) such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit may
kindly be granted."
4. Thus, the suit was essentially based on the correction
made in the revenue record in wake of the settlement of boundary
under Section 138 after coming into force of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code (for short "MLR Code") by repealing the Hyderabad
Record of Rights in Land Act. The period of limitation for correction
under Section 158 has been prescribed by the MLR Code as one year
and after one year there is a bar to the suit. Section 158 is
reproduced here:
"158. Bar of suit
No suit shall lie against the State Government or any officer
of the State Government in respect of a claim to have an
entry made in any record or register that is maintained
under this Chapter or to have any entry omitted or
amended."
4 sa544.06.odt
5. Perusal of the pleadings as well as prayer goes to show
that the appellant is aggrieved by reduction of area of the land
allotted to him by way of settlement of boundary mark which has
been done in the settlement of the year 1962-63. Evidently, the suit
is filed on 26.10.1983 which is after more than twenty years of the
settlement survey done by the State Government. Therefore, the
finding of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court that the suit
is barred by law of limitation does not require interference.
6. It is contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the
appellant that legal representatives of the original plaintiff are still in
possession of the suit property. Be that as it may, the plaintiff has
filed a suit for declaration which is barred under Section 158 of the
MLR Code. Therefore, no interference is required and the second
appeal is dismissed.
(JUDGE)
Wagh
