Shaikh Chand S/O Shaikh Ramzan Mulani vs State Of Maharashtra Thru Prin. ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2871 Bom

Bombay High Court

Shaikh Chand S/O Shaikh Ramzan Mulani vs State Of Maharashtra Thru Prin. ... on 18 March, 2026

Author: Manish Pitale

Bench: Manish Pitale

                                                                                   906_IA_2159_26.doc



                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                   INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2159 OF 2026
                                                     IN
                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 1084 OF 2023
                      Shaikh Chand s/o. Shaikh Ramzan Mulani ...    Applicant/Petitioner
                            vs.
                      The State of Maharashtra,
                      Through Principal Secretary,
                      Revenue and Forest Department & others ...    Respondents

Mr. G. D. Shaikh a/w. Adv. Sauda Nachan, i/b. Judicare Law Associates for applicant/petitioner.

Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP a/w. Ms. Tanu N. Bhatia, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State authorities.

                                                          CORAM :    MANISH PITALE &
                                                                     SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
                                                          DATE   :   18th MARCH, 2026
                      P.C. :
                      .        This application is moved by the petitioner for seeking urgent

relief on the ground that possession of the subject land is likely to be taken from him today.

2. We find that this petition has been pending since the year 2023. Notice was issued as far back as on 25.04.2023. The respondents were required to file their reply affidavits. We find that respondent No.3 - Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation has filed its reply affidavit. But respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State authorities have yet not filed the same.

3. The petitioner claims that the impugned award suffers from fraud as the person entitled for payment of compensation, has been recognized as respondent No.4, while he has nothing to do with the subject land.

Digitally

PRIYA signed by PRIYA KAMBLI

KAMBLI Date:

2026.03.18 17:34:04 +0530

906_IA_2159_26.doc

4. Reliance is placed on a revenue record i.e. 7/12 extract, to claim that the petitioner is actually the owner of the subject land, while respondent No.4 is recognized as owner and entitled to receive compensation in the award.

5. Since allegations are specifically made against the State authorities, we deem it appropriate that a detailed reply affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

6. We have considered the contents of the writ petition and the documents filed therewith, to examine as to whether a strong prima facie case is made out today itself, for granting protection.

7. We find that the 7/12 extract on which the petitioner places much reliance, does not specifically recognize the petitioner as the owner. It only includes the name of the petitioner under the column of the person, who is cultivating the land. On further queries put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it came to light that he was cultivating on Tillers day and on that basis, the petitioner claims that he is the deemed owner, under The Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, of the land originally belonging to a Trust i.e. Taboot Inam Endowment Trust.

8. It has further come to light that according to the petitioner, a proceeding initiated before the competent authority for declaration that the petitioner is the deemed owner, is still pending. In other words, as on today, the claim of the petitioner of being the owner of the land, is yet to be determined and crystallized by the competent authority.

906_IA_2159_26.doc

9. We further find that the aforementioned Trust has not been made party to the present petition. The 7/12 extract also shows that there is an encumbrance of the Waqf Board to the extent of ₹ 91 lakhs.

10. We also find that respondent No.4 is alleged to have given consent for acquisition on behalf of the said Trust, which according to the petitioner, is completely fraudulent. In any case, in the face of such facts and in the absence of the said Trust being a party before this Court and also, without the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, no further orders can be passed in this petition and also in the interim application.

11. In view of the above, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to file reply affidavit within a period of two weeks from today.

12. The petitioner is granted leave to amend the petition to add Taboot Inam Endowment Trust and Waqf Board as party respondents in this petition. Amendment be carried out within one week from today.

13. Thereupon, notice be issued to the newly added respondents, returnable on 15.04.2026, High on Board.

14. In the meanwhile, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 may also file their reply affidavits.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J) (MANISH PITALE, J.)

Priya Kambli