Bombay High Court
Union Of India Through The Deputy Salt ... vs Alark Laxman Desai And Anr on 19 March, 2021
Author: Anuja Prabhudessai
Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai
P.H. Jayani 06 WPST29471.2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 29471 OF 2019
Union of India ....Petitioner
v/s
Alark Laxman Desai and anr. .... Respondents
Mr. Karan Bhosale a/w. Mr. Anil D. Yadav for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ashutosh C. Gavnekar i/b. Mr. C.G. Gavnekar for the Respondents.
CORAM: SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.
DATED : 19th MARCH, 2021.
P. C. :-
. Heard Mr. Karan Bhosale, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Ashutosh Gavnekar, learned counsel for the Respondents. I have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. The Petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 01/10/2019 whereby learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Judge, Thane has rejected the Application filed by the Petitioner at Exhibit - 67 in Special Civil Suit No.663 of 2002 for framing of additional issues.
3. The Petitioner herein has filed a Suit for declaration and for recovery of possession. The dispute in the present case is in respect of the Salt pan under Old Survey No.224 admeasuring 35 Acres 15 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 13:18:20 ::: P.H. Jayani 06 WPST29471.2019.doc Gunthas situated at Village Rai murdhe, Taluka and District Thane.
4. The plaintiff claims that under Endorsement No.587/1885 dated 24/01/1885 of the Commissioner of Customs, Salt, Opium and Abkari, Narayan Vasudev, the predecessor of the defendant, was allowed to open salt work on the Government land admeasuring 24 Acres out of Survey No.172 for manufacture of salt on payment of Rs.120/-. The original licensee and his successors have paid ground rent for the use of the land to the Salt Department of the plaintiff as per the terms and conditions of the license. The defendants had raised a plea that they are the owners in possession of the subject land. It is their case that the said land had been purchased by their predecessors way back in the year 1886 and that they are in possession of the same as owners thereof. Plea for framing additional issue springs from these pleadings.
5. In the previous round of litigation, the defendants have challenged the notice dated 11/07/1983 whereby the Plaintiff had called upon the Defendant to execute a lease vis-a-vis the suit land for renewal of license to manufacture salt. The defendants assailed this notice in Writ Petition No.1151/1984. The order of this Court to renew the license without insisting upon requisition set out in the notice was 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 13:18:20 ::: P.H. Jayani 06 WPST29471.2019.doc challenged by the Plaintiff before the Apex Court. The Apex Court directed the parties to approach the Competent Authority under the Land Revenue Code for adjudication of their grievance. Accordingly, the defendants approached the Competent Authority under Section 20(2) of the Code for a declaration that the land was of their ownership. By order dated 15/11/2001, the Sub-Divisional Officer has upheld the contention of the Defendant No.1 that the land was purchased by his predecessor from the Government on payment of Rs.120/-.
6. The defendants have substantiated their claims by seeking injunction under Section 2092) of the Code and consequent order dated 15/11/2001. The validity of this order has been challenged in this Suit and the issue in this regard is already framed. Under the circumstances, issues nos.2, 3 and 4 would sufficiently deal with the contention raised by the parties.
7. In the light of the above, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Hence, the Petition is dismissed.
(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 13:18:20 :::