Rama S/O Durga Pachare And Others v. Dharamraj S/O Tukdoji Tote And Others

1 08-WP2278-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.

OF 20 (RAMA DURGA PACHARE & 2 OTH..VS.. DHARMARAJ TUKDOJI TOTE & 2 OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.R.Agrawal, Adv. a/w. Ms Astha Sharma, Adv. for Petitioners. Shri H.D.Dubey, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : A NIL S. KILOR , J.

DATED : JUNE 14 , 20 .

1.

The present matter pertains to Section 5 of the Mamalatdars' Courts Act, 1906 (hereianfter referred to as "the Act of 1906").

2.

The petitioner is original non-applicant, who succeeded before the Tahsildar who rejected the application field by the respondent No.1 under Section 5 of the Act of 1906. However, in an appeal before the SubDivisional Officer the respondent succeeded and therefore, this petition.

3.

This Court, in the case of Gorakshan Sansthan, Murtizapur ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2019(3) ALL MR 849 has held that the compliance of Sections 7 and 9 of the Act of 1906 is mandatory. 4.

Bare perusal of the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 5 of the Act of 1906 it is evident that there is no compliance of Sections 7 and 9 of

2 08-WP2278-2018 the Act of 1906 and accordingly, I am of the opinion that the matter needs to be remanded back to the Tahsildar to decide the same afresh, after ensuring compliance of Sections 7 and 9 of the Act of 1906. Since there is no compliance of Sections 7 and 9 of the Act of 1906, I am not inclined to go into the meirts of the mater. 5.

Accordingly, I pass the following order:

i) The writ petition is partly allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 14/02/2017 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer is hereby quashed and set aside.

ii) The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.2-Tahsildar, Achalpur to decide the same afresh, taking into consideration the observations made by this Court in the case of Gorakshan Sansthan, Murtizapur ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2019(3) ALL MR 849.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

JUDGE PRIVATE SECRETARY RRaut..