Bapu Maruti Jarande Decd Thru Lhrs And ORS v. Janabai Tukaram Kamathe And ANR

Arun

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 656 OF 2025 Bapu Maruti Jarande & Ors.

...Petitioners

Versus

Janabai Tukaram Kamathe & Anr

...Respondents

Mr. Sushant Prabhune, for the Petitioners.

CORAM:

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATE:

20th JANUARY 2025 ORDER:- 1.

This Petition is an exemplar of the insuperable hindrances often faced by the Decree Holder to execute the Decree. 2.

The Decree in the instant case was passed in the year 1983 in RCS No. 37 of 1980. Reference to multiple proceedings may not be necessary. Suffice to note that this is the third Petition before this Court in a span of one and a half year.

ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL 3.

By a common order dated 23rd January 2018 on Applications ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2025.01.30 09:22:56 +0530 (Exhibit "122" and "132"), the executing Court declared that the Decree has not been satisfied and it be executed.

4.

The Petitioners challenged the said Order in Writ Petition no. 9049 of 2018. By an Order dated 21st July 2023, this Court dismissed 1/4

the Petition and directed the executing Court to decide the Execution Application within a period of six months.

5.

The Judgment Debtors preferred an Application (Exhibit "262") seeking a direction to re-measure Gat No. 1016 and the fresh measurement of Gat No. 1042 in accordance with the current Revenue Record with the office of District Superintendent, Land Record, Purandar. By an Order dated 24th June 2024, the executing Court rejected the said Application clearly recording that in view of the Report submitted by the Land Record Office (Exhibit "259"), re-measurement as prayed for by the Judgment Debtors was not warranted. 6.

The Petitioners challenged the said Order in Writ Petition No. 14317 of 2024. By an Order dated 14th October 2024, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the Deputy Superintendent of Land Record ("DSLR") to visit the land and erect the boundary marks on the basis of boundaries which he had already identified as per the letter dated 10th June 2024. The executing court was directed to decide the Application (Exhibit 262") and pass further necessary orders.

7.

Pursuant to the said order, the DSLR placed a report before the executing court (Exhibit "339") on 5th December 2024 stating that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 3rd December 2024, the concerned surveyor (Nimtandar) has measured the land bearing Gat 2/4

No. 1016 and 1042 and the boundary marks of the encroached area of 0-14R were fixed as per the measurement map of 1975 and those were shown to the Defendant and Bailiff. Based on the aforesaid Report, the learned Civil Judge rejected the Application (Exhibit "262") opining that the Judgment Debtors desired to have re-measurement of the land to start a new round of litigation.

8.

Undeterred the Judgment Debtors preferred Application (Exhibit "345") asserting that the directions of this Court in the Order dated 14th October 2024 were not scrupulously complied with. The executing court found no substance in the said Application. Thus, the Application came to be rejected by an Order dated 13th December 2024. 9.

Both the aforesaid Orders are assailed in this Petition. 10.

Mr. Prabhune, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, made an endeavour to urge that there is material alternation in the Revenue Records and thus the measurement based on the map of the year 1975 does not indicate the correct situation. Mr. Prabhune submitted that the measurement ought to have been carried out in accordance with the Falani map sanctioned in the year 1998.

11.

The aforesaid submission is required to be noted to be repelled. The Judgment Debtors have left no stone unturned to delay and defeat the execution of the Decree. The Order passed by this Court on 14th October 2024 is absolutely clear. The material on record indicates that 3/4

the DSLR had caused the measurement of the land and erected the boundary marks in conformity with the said Order. 12.

Despite negation of the very same contention repeatedly, the Judgment Debtors are putting hindrances in the execution of the Decree by raising self-same contentions. The contention that the remeasurement is required to be carried out in accordance with the map sanctioned in 1998, has been negated by the executing court and this Court. The said contention is but a subterfuge to defeat the execution of the Decree.

13.

Hence, the Petition stands dismissed. No costs. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 4/4