[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
M/S.Varad Developer Thr. Partner ... vs Mohan S. Mane (Deceased)(Thr. Lrs. Nila ... on 12 May, 2026
15-wp-2043-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2043 OF 2026
Nathusaheb Bapusaheb Mane
Since Deceased Thr. Lrs.
Yuvraj Mane ...Petitioners
V/s.
Goverdhan Sanstha,
Vai-Pune-Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents
------------
Mr. Rushikesh C. Barge, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. Somnath Thengal i/b. Avesh Ghadge, Advocate for respondent nos.1,
2 & 3.
Mr. A. M. Kulkarni with Shailesh Chavan Manmath Athalye, Advocate for
respondent no.6.
------------
Coram : Pravin S. Patil, J.
Vacation Court
Date : May 12, 2026.
P. C. :
1. Heard.
2. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 22nd June 2026.
3. Mr. Thengal waives service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1
to 3 and Mr. Kulkarni waives service of notice on behalf of respondent
No. 6.
4. The petitioners have moved before the Vacation Bench on the
adn 1 of 4
15-wp-2043-2026.doc
ground that on 27th April 2026 he received a notice from the Circle
Officer, Ambavade Khurd, District Satara, intimating thereby that on 12th
May 2026 the authorities would take possession as per the orders of the
Court. Hence, the petitioner seeks interim relief in the matter.
5. In the present matter, the petitioners has pointed out that he had
filed Regular Civil Suit No. 758 of 2001 wherein a decree was passed to
the effect that, without following due process of law, the heirs of
Nathusaheb Bapusaheb Mane shall not be dispossessed. Accordingly, it is
the submission of the petitioners that though the decree has been passed
in his favour, without following due procedure of law, the respondents
are trying to dispossess him and therefore he has filed simplicitor suit for
permanent injunction and prayed therein for temporary injunction during
the pendency of suit. However, same has been rejected by both the Court
below, therefore, he filed present petition before this Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has strongly
opposed the petition. According to him, there are concurrent findings
recorded by both the Court below while rejecting the interim application.
He has specifically pointed out the chronological events recorded by the
learned Trial Court in its order dated 5th March 2026. From the
chronological events recorded in the impugned order, it appears that after
the decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 758 of 2001, the present respondents
adn 2 of 4
15-wp-2043-2026.doc
initiated proceedings before the Tahsildar. The said proceedings were
challenged up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners. At present
review petition is pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
7. The respondents have specifically pointed out that the petitioners
had assailed the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
dated 15th May 2025 in Application No. 24 of 2024, whereby the
application filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay of about 65
years in preferring a revision against the order dated 23rd December
1959 passed by the Collector granting a certificate of exemption to
respondent No. 1 - Trust under Section 88D of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, was rejected. It is pointed out that the said
writ petition was dismissed by judgment and order dated 3rd July 2025.
8. It is further pointed out that the petitioners had also assailed the
legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 15th May 2025
passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.
24 of 2025, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the
judgment and order dated 16th April 2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner and confirming
the order passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Satara in Tenancy
Application No. 2 of 2020, directing eviction of the petitioners from the
adn 3 of 4
15-wp-2043-2026.doc
subject land and delivery of possession thereof to the respondent-
landlord, by filing Writ Petition No. 8301 of 2025. The said writ petition
was also dismissed by this Court by the same order dated 3rd July 2025.
9. In view of the aforesaid factual position, both the Courts below
have rightly dealt with all the issues involved in the matter and, after
considering the submissions raised by the petitioner, rejected his prayer
by recording valid reasons.
10. In the circumstances, at this stage, I do not find any reason to
interfere in the matter and accordingly the interim relief prayed by the
petitioners cannot be granted at this stage.
[Pravin S. Patil, J.]
adn 4 of 4
