← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/865/2016disposed offdismissed for default

Jyotiram Saudagar Kachare v. Sojarbai Sakharam Machale And Others

2019-01-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge2 pages

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.865 OF 2016 (Jyotiram s/o Saudagar Kachare Vs. Sojarabai w/o Sakharam Machale and others) Mr.P.D.Suryawanshi., Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.V.Gundre, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 6. ( CORAM : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.) DATE : 09/01/2019 PER COURT :

1.

I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides and have gone through the petition paper book with their assistance. I have perused Rule 21 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Rules framed under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. 2.

Issue is as to the identification of 7 acres of land with reference to which the deceased Saudagar was given a certificate u/s 38-E as a protected tenant. There is no dispute that the purchase price was decided and was deposited and Saudagar became the absolute owner of 7 acres land. This portion of the land is a part of the suit property admeasuring 31 acres of land. 67 R land is said to have been acquired by the Government in a public project. Saudagar is said to have sold 7 acres and 10 gunthas land to a third party who can not be identified by the learned Advocates. They however admit this khs/JAN.2019/865-d

- 2 - aspect. Thereafter Saudagar has again sold out 3 acres of land by creating plots.

3.

The Trial Court has framed issue No.6 as :- Whether there is a specification of suit land held as "owner" and the suit land held as a "protected tenant" ?

4.

The petitioner moved application Exh.56 in RCS No.590/2011 praying for referring Issue No.6 to the Tenancy Court. Apart from making such a prayer, there is no pleading to the extent that some portion of the suit land forms a dispute as regards tenancy rights. When all aspects pertaining to the certificate as a protected tenant having been issued to Saudagar who became an absolute owner of 7 acres of land are undisputed, there is no issue as regards tenancy to be decided.

5.

In view of the above, I find that the Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting Exh.56 by the impugned order dated 13/12/2015. The liberty granted to defendant No.2 in the last paragraph of the impugned order would resolve this issue. 6.

This petition, being devoid of merit, is therefore, dismissed. ( Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.) khs/JAN.2019/865-d