Mahadu Ganu Khutale Died Thr Lrs Rajaram Mahadu Khutale Died Mainabai Rajaram Khutale And Other v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

2024:BHC-AUG:17382 (1) 935-wp-8251-2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8251 OF 2024 MAHADU GANU KHUTALE DIED THR LRS RAJARAM MAHADU KHUTALE DIED MAINABAI RAJARAM KHUTALE AND OTHER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...

Mr. Manoj Uttamrao Shelke, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. A. V. Lavte, AGP for Respondents-State.

...

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

DATED : 07th AUGUST, 2024.

P.C.:- 1.

Heard Mr. Shelke, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners and the learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent-State. 2.

The petitioners seek to quash proceeding no.2023@vkjvksvkj@gSnzkckn@dqG@dkfo initiated by respondent no.3 before Tahsildar, Beed for acceptance of reasonable purchase price and issuance of tenancy certificate.

3.

Mr. Shelke, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners would submit that infact in File No.9/3/58 issue as regards to the declaration under Section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 as regards to land in question has been considered and decided by the Tahsildar and Tenancy Tribunal for Beed Taluka and finding is arrived that respondents cannot seek declaration under Section 38-E. He would submit that in light of adjudication of issue in previous proceeding vide order dated 29.09.1960 passed by the Tribunal, the present proceeding initiated by respondent no.3 is barred by principles of res-judicata.

(2) 935-wp-8251-2024.odt 4.

Apparently, issue as regards to res-judicata as sought to be raised in this petition will have to be dealt with by the Tahsildar before whom respondent no.3 has initiated proceeding seeking relief of issuance of ownership certificate or acceptance of purchase price. If such an issue is raised by the petitioners, it is expected that the learned Tahsildar would frame appropriate issue, record evidence of the parties and after granting sufficient opportunity to make submissions pass appropriate order. This Court cannot delve into the issue of res-judicata as sought to be raised in Writ Petition, when Competent Authority is seized with the substantive proceeding.

5.

In that view of the matter, Writ Petition stands dismissed with observations as above.

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/August-2024