Bombay High Court
Mr. Shahaji Nivrutti Kharade (Since ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 21 April, 2026
Author: Anil L. Pansare
Bench: Anil L. Pansare
4-wp-7874-2014.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7874 OF 2014
Shahaji Nivrutti Kharade
(Since deceased) Through LRs (daughter)
Sau. Shanta Bhikaji Shinde (Since deceased)
Through LRs (husband)
Mr. Bhikaji Mahadev Shinde ..... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. Amol Amarnath Kanaki with Mr. C. Rohit i/b Dr. Ramdas P
Sabban, for the Petitioner.
Mr. K. R. Maniyar with Mr. Rohit Chalwadi and Mr. Nripendra Kumar,
for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6.
Mr. Atul P. Vanarase, AGP for Respondent-State.
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE,
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
DATED: 21st APRIL 2026 P.C.:-
1. The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction against the Respondents to extend the time to execute the sale deed and to complete the construction work under the U.L.C. Exemption Order dated 13th July 1983, under Section 20 the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Suresh 1/5 ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:06:12 :::
4-wp-7874-2014.doc
2. The counsel for Respondent No.6 submits that the Petitioner has no locus to file the petition. He submits that the original Allottee was Shri. Shahaji Nivrutti Kharade. He expired on 28 th January 1994 leaving behind two daughters namely Sou. Shantabai Bhikaji Shinde and Sou. Nandabai Vitthal Sarate. The Petitioner is husband of Sou. Shantabai, who also expired in the intervening period without issue.
3. The argument is that the property shall devolve upon the legal heirs of Shahaji. He submits that Shantabai expired without issue. Accordingly, he has invited our attention to Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which reads thus:
"15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.--
(1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,--
(a) Firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband;
(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;
(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;
(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and
(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),
--
Suresh 2/5
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:06:12 :::
4-wp-7874-2014.doc
(a)any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and
(b)any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-
section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband."
4. As could be seen, Section 15 of the Act provides for general rule of succession in the case of female. Sub-section (1) provides that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve firstly upon the sons and daughters and the husband. The Sub- section (2) of Section 15, which commences with non-obstante clause, however, provides that the property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased, not upon the other heirs referred to in Sub-section (1), but upon the heirs of father. Suresh 3/5 ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:06:12 :::
4-wp-7874-2014.doc
5. In the present case, since Smt. Shantabai had no son and daughter, the property will devolve upon the legal heirs of her father namely Shahaji Kharade. This would mean that the other legal heir of Shahaji i.e. Sou. Nandbai Vitthal Sarate will be entitled to receive the share of Smt. Shantabai. Thus, according to him, the Petitioner has no locus to file petition.
6. The other argument is that the petition itself is not maintainable, since it arises out of a private contract, where the State authorities-Respondents Nos.1 to 3 have no role to play.
7. Prima facie, we find substance in the arguments. However, before coming to final conclusion, we would like to hear the counsel for Petitioner on this point.
8. Kept back at the end of the board.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) Later on 2:30
9. Mr. Kanaki, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Suresh 4/5 ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:06:12 ::: 4-wp-7874-2014.doc statement made by the Respondent No.6 that 'Shantabai died without issue' is incorrect statement. According to him, Shantabai has two sons, namely, Arvind and Sarang. He further submits that Sarang has expired. He seeks time to place on record the details thereof. Time granted.
10. We have perused the petition and find that no averments have been made by the Petitioner disclosing the names of the legal heirs. At the same time, we find no reason why Respondent No. 6 should make an incorrect statement before this Court. Thus, there are lapses on the part of both, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 6. The net result is that the precious time of the Court has been wasted.
11. Accordingly, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 6 shall pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- each to the office of the Government Pleader, which shall be utilized for purchasing necessary equipments.
12. Stand over to 6th May 2026.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) Suresh 5/5 ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 04:06:12 :::