[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Madhukar Sadashiv Kokate vs Mr. Dashrath Vitthal Shitole And Ors on 6 January, 2026
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2026:BHC-AS:244
4 WP 899.24.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 899 OF 2024
Madhukar Sadashiv Kokate
Age: 77 years, Occ. Agri & Nursery,
R/o. Opp. S. P. College, 1674, Sadashiv
Peth, Pune - 411 030. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. Dashrath Vitthal Shitole
Age. 43 years, Occ. Agri & Business,
R/o. Koregaon Mul, Inamdar Vasti,
Tq. Haveli, Dist. Pune - 412 202.
2. Bharat Mohanlal Solanki
Age. 42 years, Occ. Agri & Business,
R/o. Velhe, Velhe Bazar Peth, Tq. Haveli,
Dist. Pune - 412 212.
3. Chandrabhan Bhimsing Thakur
Age. 63 years, Occ. Agri & Business,
R/o. Chandrabhan Thakur, Giridghar
Bhavan, 65/512, Thakur Food Products,
Maharshinagar, Pune - 411 037.
4. Amit Chandrabhan Thakur
Age. 36 years, Occ. Agri & Business,
R/o. Chandrabhan Thakur, Giridghar
SANTOSH
Bhavan, 65/512, Thakur Food Products,
SUBHASH
KULKARNI Maharshinagar, Pune - 411 037. ...Respondents
Digitally signed
by SANTOSH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.01.06
19:09:42 +0530
Mr. Chaitanya Nikte a/w Mr. Vishal Tiwari, i/b. Prajit Sahane,
for petitioner.
Mr. S. S. Patwardhan i/b. Purshottam Chavan, for
respondents.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 16th DECEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 06th JANUARY 2026
1/12
SAINATH
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:46:23 :::
4 WP 899.24.DOC
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the
consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
assails the legality, propriety and correctness of a judgment and
order dated 09th October, 2023 passed by the learned District
Judge, Pune in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 238/2021
whereby the Appeal preferred by the petitioner - plaintiff against
an order dated 05th February, 2021 passed by the learned Civil
Judge, Pune in R.C.S No. 751/2020 thereby rejecting an
application for temporary injunction, came to be dismissed.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts can be
stated as under:
3.1 Laxman Babu Kokate was the original holder of
agricultural land bearing Gat No. 410 situated at village
Koregaon (Mul), Tq. Haveli, Dist. Pune. The plaintiff, who is the
successor in interest of Laxman Babu Kokate, claims to be the
owner of 1/3rd share in the said land. Out of the said land, 80R
land was acquired for rehabilitation of the project affected
SAINATH
4 WP 899.24.DOC
persons. The said 80R land was allotted to Late Maruti Sadashiv
More, the predecessor in title of the defendants. The land
bearing Gat No. 410 was, thus, divided into Gat No. 410/1 and
410/2. Vide ME No. 1469, the land bearing Gat No. 410/2 came
to be mutated in the name of Late Maruti Sadashiv More.
3.2 The controversy between the parties revolves around the
location of the said land bearing Gat No. 410/2. The plaintiff
asserts that, the land which was allotted to Late Maruti
Sadashiv More abuts the railways. No parcel of land abutting
Pune - Solapur Highway was ever acquired. The land abutting
Pune - Solapur Highway has always been in the possession and
cultivation of the plaintiff, yet, on the basis of incorrect entries
in the record prepared at the time of the acquisition of the land,
the defendants threatened to cause obstruction to the peaceful
possession and cultivation of the land admeasuring 80R
situated on the southern side of Pune - Solapur Highway (the
suit land).
3.3 It was asserted that, the land acquisition authorities had
clarified that, the 80R land abutting the railways was acquired
and allotted to Late Maruti Sadashiv More. Yet, the defendants
SAINATH
4 WP 899.24.DOC
threatened to dispossess the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for
injunction.
3.4 In the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application for
temporary injunction. It was resisted by the defendants. By an
order dated 05th February, 2021, the learned Civil Judge was
persuaded to reject the application observing, inter alia, that,
the material on record indicated that, the defendants were in
possession of the suit land, and, conversely, the plaintiff failed
to establish his own possession over the suit land. The
contemporaneous record indicated that, the suit land was
allotted to Late Maruti Sadashiv More.
3.5 Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before
the learned District Court. By the impugned judgment and
order, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal
concurring with the view of the Trial Court. The learned District
Judge was of the view that, the documents which were
contemporaneous to the process of acquisition commanded
preference over letter addressed by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer to the brother of the plaintiff indicating the date of
delivery of possession, and the boundaries, of the acquired land.
SAINATH
4 WP 899.24.DOC
3.6 Being further aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the
writ jurisdiction.
4. I have heard Mr. Chaitanya Nikte, the learned Counsel for
the petitioner, and Mr. S. S. Patwardhan, the learned Counsel
for the respondents, at some length. With the assistance of the
learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the material on
record including the impugned orders.
5. Mr. Nikte, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, would
urge that, both the Courts below have proceeded on an incorrect
premise that, the documents which were contemporaneous with
the land acquisition process commanded preference over the
documents relied upon by the plaintiff. Mr. Nikte would urge,
those documents evidenced the events which transpired at the
stage when the acquisition was proposed. However, at the time
of actual acquisition, the 80R land situated on the northern
side of Railway Line was allotted to Late Maruti Sadashiv More,
and that fact was certified by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer. Therefore, the Courts below have misdirected themselves
in returning the findings that, the suit land was allotted to Late
Maruti Sadashiv More. Mr. Nikte made an endeavor to place
reliance on the demarcation map of Koregaon (Mul) which
SAINATH
4 WP 899.24.DOC
indicates that, the land which was to be acquired abutted the
Railway Line and not the Pune - Solapur Highway. It was
submitted that, though the said demarcation map could not be
tendered before the Trial Court, yet, since the boundaries of the
acquired land shown in the letter issued by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer dated 18th May, 1984 correspond with the
entries in the said demarcation map, the Court would be
justified in taking into account the said demarcation map.
6. In opposition to this, Mr. Patwardhan, the learned Counsel
for the respondents, would urge that, the impugned orders do
not suffer from any perversity so as to warrant interference in
exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Taking the Court through
the reasons, which weighed with the learned District Judge and
the learned Civil Judge, Mr. Patwardhan would urge that, the
Courts below have recorded justifiable, prima facie, findings of
fact based on objective material and, thus, such exercise of
discretion is not open for correction in writ jurisdiction.
7. On the merits of the matter, Mr. Patwardhan would urge,
there is overwhelming material to show that, the land abutting
Pune - Solapur Highway was allotted to Late Maruti Sadashiv
More as a project affected person. It was submitted that, even
SAINATH
4 WP 899.24.DOC
the Deputy Superintendent, Land Records, Haveli had measured
the land and submitted a report vide MR No. 30721/2020 fixing
the exact location of the said land. The Courts below have taken
into account the said map prepared by the Deputy
Superintendent, Land Records alongwith the contemporaneous
documents. In the face of such material, reliance on the
communication purportedly addressed by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer indicating the boundaries of the suit land,
does not command any preference, submitted Mr. Patwardhan.
8. At the outset, it is necessary to keep in view the limits of
supervisory jurisdiction while appraising the legality and
correctness of a discretionary order. In exercise of the
supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court is not expected to re-
appreciate, reweigh and review the evidence and material, and
substitute its view for the one recorded by the Courts below. The
High Court cannot permit itself to be converted into another
appellate forum. The High Court can legitimately intervene if the
impugned order has been passed in excess of jurisdiction or the
perversity in the order is manifest.
SAINATH
4 WP 899.24.DOC
9. A profitable reference in this context can be made to the
judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Rajendra
Diwan Vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Anr. 1, and Ajay Singh Vs.
Khacheru & Ors2.
10. In the case of Rajendra Diwan Vs. Pradeep Kumar
Ranibala & Anr., (supra), the Supreme Court has expounded the
nature of the jurisdiction under Article 227 as under:-
....
"85. The power of superintendence conferred by Article
227 is, however, supervisory and not appellate. It is
settled law that this power of judicial superintendence
must be exercised sparingly, to keep subordinate courts
and tribunals within the limits of their authority. When a
Tribunal has acted within its jurisdiction, the High Court
does not interfere in exercise of its extraordinary writ
jurisdiction unless there is grave miscarriage of justice or
flagrant violation of law. Jurisdiction under Article 227
cannot be exercised " in the cloak of an appeal in
disguise".
86. In exercise of its extraordinary power of
superintendence and/or judicial review under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High
Courts restrict interference to cases of patent error of law
which go to the root of the decision; perversity;
1 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1586
2 (2025) 3 SCC 266
SAINATH
4 WP 899.24.DOC
arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness; violation of
principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction and
usurpation of powers. The High Court does not re-assess
or re-analyse the evidence and/or materials on record.
Whether the High Court would exercise its writ
jurisdiction to test a decision of the Rent Control
Tribunal would depend on the facts and circumstances of
the case. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot
be converted into an alternative appellate forum, just
because there is no other provision of appeal in the eye of
the law." ......
11. In the case of Ajay Singh Vs. Khacheru & Ors. (supra),
limits of the exercise of writ jurisdiction were expounded as
under:
"38. Though powers of a High Court under
Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive
over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises
jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised
within the limits of law. The power if supervisory
in nature. The High Court does not act as a court
of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review
nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon
which determination of a subordinate court or
inferior tribunal purports to be based or to
correct errors of fact or even of law and to
substitute its own decision for that of the inferior
court or tribunal. The powers are required to be
exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate
cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and
inferior tribunals within the limits of law".
12. On the aforesaid touchstone, reverting to the facts of the
case at hand, it becomes evident that, the Courts below have
recorded the concurrent prima facie findings of fact that, the
SAINATH
4 WP 899.24.DOC
plaintiff failed to establish possession over the suit land. The
said findings appear to be based on the extract of the list of the
lands which were acquired for the rehabilitation of the project
affected persons. At Serial No. 18 of the said list, the description
of the land which was acquired out of Gat No. 410 has been
furnished. On the southern side of the said 80R land runs Pune
- Solapur Highway.
13. Mr. Nikte attempted to salvage the position by canvassing
a submission that, the list contained the particulars of the land
then proposed to be acquired and the said list was not final. The
Courts below were not prepared to accede to the said
submission, and rightly so. Apart from the said list, there were
contemporaneous documents including the requisitions sent to
the Revenue Authorities to mutate the lands in the names of the
project affected persons to whom the respective lands were
allotted and the resultant mutation entries which lent credence
to the claim of the defendants. Moreover, the boundaries shown
in the said list of acquired land and the contemporaneous
record, correspond with the boundaries shown in the map
prepared by the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records vide
MR No. 30721/2020. In the face of aforesaid material, the
SAINATH
4 WP 899.24.DOC
Courts below were indeed justified in placing implicit reliance on
the contemporaneous record.
14. The entire case of the plaintiff appears to hinge on the
communication purportedly addressed by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer on 18th May, 1984 to the brother of the
plaintiff, wherein the boundaries of the acquired land were
shown. The said document cannot be read torn out of context,
and, in isolation. At this stage, the contemporaneous record
outweighs the description of the property contained in a
communication purportedly addressed by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer. Moreover, the stoic silence on the part of the
plaintiff for over 35 years, and failure to place on record any
credible material to demonstrate that, the plaintiff had been in
possession of the suit land, prima facie, eroded the claim of the
plaintiff.
15. In the aforesaid view of the matter, at this juncture, this
Court does not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the
impugned orders, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.
16. So far as, the demarcation map which was sought to be
tendered before the Court, suffice to note that, the plaintiff will
SAINATH
4 WP 899.24.DOC
have to lead cogent evidence to co-relate the said map,
especially the location of the acquired land, with the suit land at
the stage of final adjudication. It would be impermissible for this
Court to interfere with the impugned orders by appreciating the
said material which was sought to be tendered before this
Court.
17. Resultantly, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.
Hence, the following Order:-
:: O R D E R ::
i) The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
ii) Rule discharged.
Iii) By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that, the
observations in this judgment are confined to
determine the legality, propriety and correctness of
the impugned judgment and order, and the Trial
Court shall not be influenced by any of the
observations made hereinabove while adjudicating
the suit.
iv) The Trial court is requested to hear and decide the
suit as expeditiously as possible.
No costs.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
SAINATH
