Bombay High Court
Dhanraj Govind Jadhav.(L.Rs.)Kamal & ... vs The State Of Maharashtra ... on 12 May, 2017
Author: Sunil P. Deshmukh
Bench: Sunil P. Deshmukh
1 WP-1712.97.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1712 OF 1997
Dhanraj s/o Govind Jadhav (died)
through legal heirs :-
1A- Smt. Kamal w/o Dhanraj Jadhav,
Age major, occup. Agriculture,
r/o Savli Vihir (kh.) Tq. Kopargaon,
District Ahmednagar
1-B Dattu s/o Dhanraj Jadhav,
Age 15 years, u/g of Kamal w/o
Dhanraj Jadhav, occup. r/o as above
1-C Ashok Dhanraj Jadhav,
Age 8 years, u/g of Kamal w/o
Dhanraj Jadhav, occup. & r/o as above
1-D Miss Bharti s/o Dhanraj Jadhav,
Age 1 year, u/g of Kamalbai w/o
Dhanraj, occup. and r/o as above
2- Machindra s/o Govind Jadhav,
Age 27 years, occup. Agriculture,
r/o as above
3- Jalindar s/o Govind Jadhav
23 years occu. Agriculture
r/o as above.
4- Smt. Bhikabai w/o Govind Jadhav
Age 54 years occu. Agriculture
r/o as above.
versus
1- The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary
copy served on Govt. Pleader,
High Court Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2017 00:33:36 :::
2 WP-1712.97.doc
2- Saw Sevantabi w/o Bapurao Dandwate,
Age 58 years occu. Agriculture
r/o Savali, Vihir (kh.) Tq.
Kopargaon District Ahmednagar.
3- Baburao s/o Namdeo Dandwate (died)
through his L.Rs.
3-A) Suryabhan s/o Baburao Dandwate,
Age 50 years, occ : Agril.,
R/o Rahata, Tqa. Kopargaon,
District : Ahmednagar.
3-B) Bhaskar s/o Baburao Dandwate,
Age 52 years, occ : Agril.,
R/o as above.
3-C) Ravnath s/o Baburao dandwate,
Age 42 years, occ : Agril.,
R/o : As above.
3-D) Vasant s/o Baburao Dandwate,
Age 40 years, occ & R/o : As above
3-E) Vinayak s/o Baburao dandwate,
Age 38 yeatrs, occ & R/o As above.
3-F) Bharat s/o Baburao Dandwate,
Age 35 years, occ & R/o : As above.
(dismissed against respondent nos. 3A to 3F
dismissed as per court's order dated 11-1-2001 for
non payment of Bhatta)
4- Receiver,
S. B. Choudhari, Age : Major
Occu. Advocate, R/o Nandurki Tq. Kopargaon
District Ahmednagar
.......
Mr. S. K. Adkine, Advocate for petitioners
Mrs. S. S. Raut, Assit. Govt. Pleader for respondent no. 1
::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2017 00:33:36 :::
3 WP-1712.97.doc
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 12th May, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Adkine and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no. 1 Mrs. Raut.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that a partnership had been entered into among the petitioners and respondents no. 2 and 3 for a period of ten years under which the concerned respondents were supposed to cultivate lands for about ten years bearing all the expenses.
3. Around 1976, proceedings bearing regular civil suit no. 644 of 1976 for injunction had been filed by respondents no. 2 and 3 in this writ petition against petitioners in respect of land bearing survey no. 44 to the extent of 9 hectare, 44 aar. The suit had been ex-parte decreed on 25-07-1977 by civil judge, junior division, Kopargaon.
::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2017 00:33:36 :::
4 WP-1712.97.doc
4. After expiry of period of ten years, possession had been demanded by petitioners but respondents refused. For execution of aforesaid ex-parte decree, regular darkhast no. 23 of 1987 had been filed by the respondents. Present petitioners had objected to said regular darkhast, stating that no share was given to them nor respondents had deposited crop value. In the circumstances, under an order passed on 04-04-1987, the court appointed receiver and from time to time the receiver was getting changed.
5. An application, around 1993, had been moved by petitioners for disposal of regular darkhast, referring to negligence on the part of respondents and receiver in cultivation of land etc.
6. While petitioners' application raising objection for continuation of regular darkhast was rejected under an order dated 03-09-1993, the petitioners had challenged said rejection before this court in civil revision application no. 1341 of 1993.
7. In the meanwhile, the petitioners had moved civil court by instituting regular civil suit no. 185 of 1988 for dissolution of partnership and upon response to the same ::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2017 00:33:36 ::: 5 WP-1712.97.doc by respondents through their written statement, certain issues had arisen, inter alia, defendant no. 2 in said suit claiming to be tenant over suit land, Said issue accordingly had been framed and referred to tenancy tribunal. The tenancy tribunal decided the issue in favour of defendant no. 2, appeal there-against has failed and as such, the matter is pending at petitioners' instance in writ petition no. 619 of 2002.
8. During all this, Mr. Adkine submits, the concerned lands were not being cultivated which has been causing irreparable loss to the petitioners. Respondents are interested in prolonging the matter. They had filed several false complaints against the petitioners and through receiver as well, inter alia, one before the court, alleging that the petitioners are obstructing cultivation of the lands by the receiver and further under an application dated 22-01- 1997 (Exhibit-178) in regular darkhast no. 23 of 1987 sought police protection to the receiver for harvesting crops which came to be granted under an order dated 05-04- 1997, which is subject-matter of present writ petition. ::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2017 00:33:36 :::
6 WP-1712.97.doc
9. Learned counsel Mr. Adkine fairly states that application which pertains to then standing crops, had in fact been not by the receiver but was by the decree holders and efficacy of the same by now is over.
10. Looking at the tenor of the application and that order dated 05-04-1997 allowing the same had limited efficacy. No interim relief had been granted in writ petition. The purpose underlying the writ petition now can hardly be met with.
11. Looking at the whole scenario and the purpose for which application (Exhibit 178) had been filed, after a huge passage of time, as fairly stated by learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the purpose appears to be inefficacious. In the process, writ petition does not appear to carry any substance after such a huge gap of time.
12. Writ petition, as such, stands disposed of.
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JUDGE pnd ::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2017 00:33:36 :::