Bablu S/O Yeshwantrao Yerane And Others v. Devlal S/O Shalikram Bhelave And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4254/2024 WRIT PETITION NO. 4254/2024 Bablu Yeshwantrao Yerane & others Bablu Yeshwantrao Yerane & others ...VERSUS...
...VERSUS...
Devlal Shalikram Bhelave & others Devlal Shalikram Bhelave & others ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders and Registrar's orders ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ Ms. A.M. Telange, Advocate for the Petitioner(s) Ms. A.M. Telange, Advocate for the Petitioner(s) Shri V.R. Borkar, Advocate for the Respondents Shri V.R. Borkar, Advocate for the Respondents
CORAM
CORAM :-:- M.S. JAWALKAR, J.
M.S. JAWALKAR, J.
JANUARY 22, JANUARY 22, (1) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. (2) The Petitioner challenges the order dated 18/03/2024 passed below Exhibits 5 & 29 in Regular Civil Suit No. 112/2021 by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Gondia. (3) It is the contention of the Petitioner that their Application under Section 36B of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation & Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") came to be rejected without considering the fact there are serious disputes as regards the measurement of the land and the Revenue Authority has committed multiple mistakes while conducting the measurement. Therefore, the Application was moved
for referring the issue to the Competent Authority and for grant of stay to the Civil Suit.
(4) The learned Trial Court partly allowed the Application at Exhibit 5 for grant of temporary injunction. Both the parties were directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the Suit Property till further orders and Application below Exhibit 29 came to be rejected. Exhibit 29 is the Application filed by the Defendants to frame issue as per the provisions of Section 36B of the said Act. It is held by the learned Trial Court that it is impossible to find out as to who is in the actual possession over the Suit Property and on which basis and also it is not possible to decide the said issue without trial, whether Revenue Record is properly maintained or not by the Revenue Authority. Moreover, if there are wrong entries taken in record, the Defendants are having remedy under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
(5) After going through the impugned order, I find that it was not appropriate stage to move the Application under Section 36B of the said Act by the Petitioner. As such, I do not see any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court below Exhibit 29. Therefore, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, Petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the impugned order to the extent below Exh 5 only before appropriate Court.
the extent below Exhibit 29 is concerned, the same is hereby confirmed.
(M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) (M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) Signed by: A.P. ANSARI Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 23/01/2025 17:51:15