Eknath Vitthalrao Kadam v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

{1} wp3369.23.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

AURANGABAD BENCH : AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3369 OF 2023 Eknath s/o Vitthalrao Kadam Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr. Umakant P. Giri, advocate for the petitioner Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 3. CORAM : S. V .GANGAPURWALA, ACTING CJ & S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

DATE : 24th March, 2023.

PER COURT :

Mr. Giri, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the possession of the petitioner's land has been taken by the respondents in the year 1994-95, though the scheme is introduced by the Government in the year 1988-89, the compensation is not paid to the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the writ property in the year 1988 by a registered sale deed.

Respondent No.4- the Chief Officer of the Municipal

{2} wp3369.23.odt Council, Manwat, has issued a letter to the petitioner stating that S. No. 243 to the extent of 3 Hectares 22 Ares is purchased by the Municipal Council under the sale deed.

It also appears that the petitioner has filed a suit before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gangakhed (Page 35), seeking declaration of ownership and injunction. He has also sought a declaration that the correspondence, made by Respondent No.4Municipal Council pertaining to land S. No.243, be declared as null and void.

When a substantive suit is sub judice before the competent Civil Court, at this stage, the writ petition can not be entertained. The petitioner will have to get the cloud cleared about his title.

With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

[S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.] [ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE] adb