Bombay High Court
Dhrupadabai Narayan Jadhav And Others vs Shakuntala Dattatraya Kasar And Others on 16 March, 2017
Author: S. B. Shukre
Bench: S. B. Shukre
Writ Petition No.3437/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3437 OF 2017
1. Dhrupadabai w/o Narayan Jadhav,
Age 79 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Pishor, Tq. Kannad,
District Aurangabad
2. Sakharam s/o Narayan Jadhav,
Age 53 years, Occu. Agri.
R/o Pishor, Tq. Kannad,
District Aurangabad
3. Shashikalabai w/o Shivaram Mote,
Age 51 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Palashi, Tq. Soygaon,
District Aurangabad
4. Anna s/o Narayan Jadhav,
Age 44 years, Occu. Agri.
R/o Pishor, Tq. Kannad,
District Aurangabad
5. Jijabai w/o Pandit Jadhav,
Age 67 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Pishor, Tq. Kannad,
District Aurangabad
6. Bharat s/o Pandit Jadhav,
Age 33 years, Occu. Agri.
R/o Pishor, Tq. Kannad,
District Aurangabad
7. Nanda w/o Bhausaheb Shelke,
Age 36 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Wavana, Tq. Fulambri,
District Aurangabad
8. Tarabai w/o Appa Jadhav,
Age 52 years, Occu. Household
R/o Pishor, Tq. Kannad,
District Aurangabad
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 01:06:13 :::
Writ Petition No.3437/2017
2
9. Ashok s/o Appa Jadhav,
Age 26 years, Occu. Agri.
R/o Pishor, Tq. Kannad,
District Aurangabad
10. Sandip s/o Appa Jadhav,
Age 24 years, Occu. Agri.
R/o Pishor, Tq. Kannad,
District Aurangabad
11. Gangabai w/o Nitin Gavali,
Age 22 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Kasabkheda, Tq. Khultabad,
District Aurangabad
12. Krishna s/o Mahadu Jadhav,
Age 45 years, Occ. Agri.
R/o Pishor, Tq. Kannad,
District Aurangabad
13. Baburao s/o Mahadu Jadhav,
Age 47 years, Occu. Agri.
R/o Pishor, Tq. Kannad,
District Aurangabad
14. Nana s/o Mahadu Jadhav,
Age 56 years, Occu. Agri.
R/o Pishor, Tq. Kannad,
District Aurangabad
15. Vishwnath s/o Bhagvan Jadhav,
Age 36 years, Occu. Agri.
R/o Pishor, Tq. Kannad,
District Aurangabad ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Shakuntala w/o Dattatraya Kasar (Ambekar),
Age 73 years, Occu., Household,
R/o High Court Employees Society,
Satara Parisar, Aurangabad
District Aurangabad
2. Prasaht s/o Dattatraya Kasar (Ambekar),
Age 39 years, Occu. Private Service,
R/o as above.
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 01:06:13 :::
Writ Petition No.3437/2017
3
3. Sushil s/o Dattatraya Kasar (Ambedkar),
Age 36 years, Occu. Business,
R/o as above.
4. Shailendra s/o Dattatraya Kasar (Ambekar),
Age 34 years, Occu. Private job,
R/o as above.
5. Pratibha w/o Vijay Akkar,
Age 48 years, Occu. Household,
R/o as above.
6. Anjali w/o Dnyaneshwar Anwekar,
Age 28 years, Occu. Household,
R/o as above.
7. Prayagbai w/o Haribhau Chaudhari,
Age 63 years, Occu. Household,
R/o C/o P.H. Choudhari, Vasant Nagar,
Plot No.56, Saraswati D.Ed. College,
Near Jawahar Colony, Aurangabad,
District Aurangabad
8. Kasabai w/o Haribhau Chaudhari,
Age 69 years, Occu. Agri.
R/o Pishor, Tq. Kannad,
District aurangabad
9. Sagar s/o Prakash Chaudhari,
Age 19 years, Occu. Education,
R/o Pishor, Tq. Kannad,
District aurangabad
10. The State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary to
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
11. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
District Aurangabad
12. The Collector, Aurangabad,
District Aurangabad
13. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Sillod, District Aurangabad
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 01:06:13 :::
Writ Petition No.3437/2017
4
14. The Tahesildar, Kannad,
Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad
(Copy to be served upon the office
of the Government Pleader, High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)
... RESPONDENTS
.....
Shri A.R. Devakate, Advocate for petitioners
Shri A.P. Basarkar, A.G.P. for State
.....
CORAM: S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED: 16th March, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice, at this stage, for final disposal, to the respondents No.10, 11, 12 and 14. Learned A.G.P. waives service for these respondents. There is no need to issue notice at this stage to the remaining respondents, as this petition involves only question about interpretation of the impugned order. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P.
2. The first impugned order in this case has been passed by the Additional Collector, Aurangabad in Appeal No.2002/appeal/MLRC/CR-37, on 17/10/2007. This order has been confirmed in Revision by the learned Additional ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 01:06:13 ::: Writ Petition No.3437/2017 5 Commissioner on 30/7/2012 when he rejected the application No.2008/ROR/Rev/PT/27. The first impugned order has been further confirmed by the Principal Secretary on 29/11/2016, when he rejected the Appeal No.2013/Case No.231/J- 7/C.No.903(08)/2014/AVP. Consequently, all the subsequent orders are also challenged in this petition.
3. By the first order, the learned Additional Collector, Aurangabad has directed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sillod to make an enquiry into the question as to whether or not Babu Mahadu and Narayan Ganpat had been conferred with the title into the land involved in dispute. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, such direction amounts to making an enquiry into the ownership, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Court and revenue authority has no jurisdiction to go into such an issue.
4. Learned A.G.P. submits that, by this direction, the Sub-Divisional Officer has been only called upon to make an enquiry into existence of proof of ownership or otherwise and nothing more.
5. A careful perusal of the impugned order discloses that the learned A.G.P. is right in his submission and, therefore, I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 01:06:13 ::: Writ Petition No.3437/2017 6 the petitioner. While there can be no dispute about the settled law that the issue of ownership can only be considered and determined by the Civil Court and not any revenue authority, the first impugned order, on its plain reading, does not indicate that the Additional Collector, Aurangabad has directed the Sub- Divisional Officer, Sillod to go into such an issue. All that the Additional Collector, Aurangabad has said in the first impugned order is that, proper enquiry should be made into the aspect of ownership of Babu Mahadu and Narayan Ganpat, meaning thereby that the enquiry should be made about existence of the aspect of title of the property and nothing more. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to make any interference with the first impugned order as well as the other impugned order subsequently passed. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. The petition stands dismissed with costs. Rule is discharged.
6. It is, however, made clear that, the enquiry to be conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sillod shall not go beyond ascertaining the existence of proof of title or otherwise and nothing more. All questions of law and facts are kept open.
( S. B. SHUKRE ) JUDGE fmp/wp3437.17 ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 01:06:13 :::