Vilas Vitthal Kashid And ANR. v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The Department Of Revenue And Forest And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2158 OF 2026

1. Vilas Vitthal Kashid Age:72 years, Occu.:

Agriculturist and Business.

2 Darshan Vilas Kashid Age:51 years, Occu.:

Agriculturist and Business, both residing at Kurduwadi, Taluka Madha, District Solapur.

....Petitioners Vs.

1. The State of Maharashtra through the Department of Revenue and Forest having office at Mantralaya Mumbai.

2 The Collector, Solapur, having office at Solapur.

3 The Tahsildar, Madha, having office at Madha, District Solapur.

4 The Circle Officer, Kurduwadi, Taluka Madha District Solapur.

5 . Sudam Laxman Palange 5a Dadasaheb Sudam Palange Age:57 years, Occu.:

5b Bharat Sudam Palange Age:54 years, Occu.:

1 of

5c Bhagwat Sudam Palange Age:51 years, Occu.:

5d Sindhu Raman Lande Age:65 years, Occu.

Household.

5e Indu Balu Ghodake Age:63 years, Occu.

Household 5f Rukminibai Sudam Palange Age:72 years, Occu.

Agriculturist and Household.

6 Murlidhar Laxman Palange 6a Popat Murlidhar Palange Age:43 years, Occu.

6b Ashok Murlidhar Palange Age:40 years, Occu.

Agriculturist and Business 6c Vasant Murlidhar Palange Age: 38 years, Occu.

Agriculturist and Business 6d Nanda Prakash Ingole Age:40 years, Occu.

Agriculturist 6e Kalpna Mininath Gholap Age:36 years, Occu.:

Agriculturist and Business 2 of

7 Ananta Laxman Palange Age:62 years, Occu.:

8 Vitthal Laxman Palange Age:64 years, Occu.:

Agriculturist and Sevice, 9 Nangnath Kundalik Palange 9a Kannhiya Naganath Palange Age:52 years, Occu.:

Agriculturist and Business 9b Jayashri Arun Thorat Age:50 years, Occu.:

Agriculturist and Business 9c Sharada Naganath Palange Age:68 years, Occu.:

Agriculturist and Business 9d Bhagyashri Naganath palange Age:44 years, Occu.:

Agriculturist and Business 9e Rajashri Naganath Palane Age:42 years, Occu.:

Agriculturist and Business 9f Milan Naganath Palange Age:54 years, Occu.:

Agriculturist and Business 10 Shivdas Kundalik Palange Age:67 years, Occu.:

3 of

11 Bhanudas Kundalik Palange Age:68 years, Occu.:

12 Geetabai Kundalik Palange 13 Kalpana Waman Thorat Age:65 years, Occu.:

Household, 14 Chababai Subhash Kotmire Age:62 years, Occu.:

Agriculturist and Household, 15 Laxmibai Vikas Thorat Age:60 years, Occu.:

Agriculturist and Household, Respondent Nos. 5a to 5f, 6a to 6e to and 7and 8 residing at Kurduwadi, Taluka Madha, District Solapur.

Respondent Nos. 9a to 9f, 14 and 15 are residing at Milind Matun Shop, Datta Nagar, Ambegaon Pune- 46.

Respondent Nos.10 residing at Hira Matun Shop Sinhagad Stop, Wadgaon (bu) Pune, Respondent No. 11 residing at Hira Matun Shop, Aadarsha Nagar Dhankwadi Pune.

Respondent No. 13 residing at Nearby Mashkewadya, Dhanakwadi, Pune.

...Respondents

4 of

Mr. Shantanu Gurav i/b Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye, advocate for the petitioners Ms. Tejas Kapre, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, & NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : 18th JUNE 2026.

JUDGMENT PER: (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) 1.

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, Petition is decided finally at admission stage. 2.

Present petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents and more particularly, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in not handing over possession of the suit property to them.

3.

The facts as can be seen from the memo of the petition are as under:

(a) The petitioners before the Court are the original plaintiffs in R.C.S. No. 297 of 2000 filed against the defendants for permanent injunction, partition and possession of the property. The said suit was partly allowed by the 4th Civil Judge Junior Division, Madha on 08/09/2017 thereby declaring that the petitioners are entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit property.

5 of

(b) Being aggrieved, the original defendants in the suit challenged the said Judgment and Decree by filing R.C.A. No. 4 of 2022 before the District Judge, Barshi. The Appellate Court after hearing the parties, partly allowed the Appeal by setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court held that the original plaintiffs alongwith original Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are also entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit property. (c) The Judgment and Decree as stated supra was put into execution and the prescribed procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') as also under The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as 'MLRC') was initiated. The said execution proceedings were bearing Regular Darkhast No. 17 of 2018.

On 10/01/2019, Tahsildar (Revenue), Solapur addressed a letter to Respondent No. 3 to initiate the process of partition in the light of the said Judgment and Decree. On 22/01/2019, the Tahsildar, Madha addressed a letter to the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records thereby directing to prepare a partition map in terms of the decree and the Regular Darkhast. On 29/05/2019, Respondent No.

partition as per the provisions of Section 85 of the MLRC. It is the grievance of the petitioners, various communications were issued by the government authorities, however, there has been inordinate delay in handing over the possession of the share which has been granted to them. This constrained the petitioners to approach the Court by filing the Writ Petition.

4.

We have heard Mr. Shantanu Gurav, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for the State. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that inaction on the part of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is causing grave prejudice to them and such inaction is without any valid and justifiable reasons. He further submits that on each and every occasion, as mandated by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, petitioners were present, however, said respondents deliberately avoided to hand over possession of the suit property by issuing new reason on each occasion. 6.

Per contra, learned AGP submits that due procedure is being followed and there is no inaction. In other words, he supports the impugned action of the respondent authorities. 7.

After carefully perusing the papers in hand and the events which are more or less undisputed, we are of the considered opinion 7 of

that there has been some delay by the authorities in getting the decree executed. However, the fact remains that the decree has been put into execution way back in the year 2018 and little is done to carry the decree to its logical end. True it is that there are various notices issued by the respondents-revenue authorities, however, we cannot be oblivious to the fact that till date, no possession has been handed over to the petitioners as per the said Judgment and Decree. 8.

We, therefore, direct Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to expedite the proceedings of handing over possession to the petitioners in pursuance of the decree and as per the proceedings in Regular Darkhast No. 17 of 2018, in further period of two months from today.

9.

With these directions, the petition is partly allowed and disposed of in above terms.

10.

Rule is made partly absolute in above terms.

[NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.

[MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

Iresh IRESH MASHAL IRESH MASHAL Date: 2026.06.18 17:15:18 +0530 8 of