Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.
Gangabai Ramrao Patil - Appellant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 792 of 2019
Decided On : 07-06-2019
Claim for possession - Eviction - Respondents-tenants claim to be in possession of any shop other than Shop in regard to which they have suffered an eviction order - It is not their case that they are also in possession of some other property in regard to which there is no eviction order but landlord is trying to take possession in these execution proceedings - Court have specifically asked learned counsel appearing for respondents that apart from Shop belonging to appellant are respondents in possession of any part of property - Learned counsel was not able to give any satisfactory reply to court question which would only mean that respondents are not in possession of any other property other than Shop leased out to them in mentioned property belonging to the appellant - That is also why they prayed for restoration of possession - Therefore, raising a dispute in regard to description or identity of suit schedule property or a dispute in regard to boundary of suit schedule property is only a bogey to delay the eviction by abuse of the process of court - Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment debtors to deny decree holders fruits of the decree obtained by them - This type of errors on the part of judicial forums only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing laws delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system – Held, in Lal Devi and another Vs. Vaneeta Jain and others, (2007) 7 SCC 200, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with a situation of abuse of the process of Law and unfair or delaying tactics resorted to by parties, concluded that when the parties adopt unfair or delaying tactics, Courts have abundant powers to deal with such situations - Courts are not helpless - Petitioner/plaintiff has run from pillar to post, leading to her exhaustion - She was 30 years old when litigation began and is now 74 years old, having practically spent her entire lifetime in this litigation - Learned Advocate for judgment debtors submits that they had raised an issue and it was left to revenue authorities to apply their wisdom and knowledge of Law and pass appropriate orders - He submits that he had even succeeded before Hon’ble Minister since the Hon’ble Minister understood Law correctly - He prays that these poor farmers may not be saddled with costs as presently their second generation is in litigation in view of original defendants having passed away and one original defendant is now 80 years of age - Petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. It is quite often said in matters of execution of decrees that it is easier to succeed in getting a decree in accordance with Law from a Court, but is very difficult to have the decree executed. This is one classic case of such type of vexatious litigation.
3. The sequence of events are material and which are as under :-
[a] The petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell with the concerned respondents on 09/09/1973.
[b] As the respondents did not abide by the agreement to sell and did not execute a sale deed, Spl.C.S.No.28/1975 was filed. The petitioner, who was 30 years of age at the relevant time, was a coplaintiff.
[c] The suit was re-numbered as RCS No.616/2000 upon being transferred to the Court of the learned Civil Judge, J.D. Udgir.
[d] By judgment dated 30/08/2003, the suit was partly decreed and the petitioner herein was declared as a joint possessor of the suit land to the extent of 2/3rd share in the suit.
[e] RCS No.616/2000, which was filed by the defendants in the first suit, was dismissed.
[e] The litigating sides preferred RCA No.53/2003, 22/2004 and 23/2004 before the First Appellate Court.
[f] By judgment dated 23/03/2006, Appeal No.53/2003, filed by the petitioner herein, was allowed and it was concluded that the entire property would go to the share of the petitioner.
[g] Appeal Nos. 22/20004 and 23/2004 filed by the defendants and the plaintiff in the second suit, were dismissed.
[h] The parties preferred SA No.686/2006 and 687/2007 against the petitioner before this Court. By judgment dated 03/05/2007, the second appeals were dismissed.
[i] The aggrieved parties approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by preferring Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 21264/2007 and 21265/2007. By order dated 23/11/2007, the petitions were dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
[j] The petitioner initiated execution proceedings and the judgment debtors preferred an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC raising objections.
[k] As the said objections were rejected, they preferred Writ Petition No.4342/2012, which was considered by the learned Vacation Judge of this Court. By observing that the judgment debtors are attempting to thwart the decree which was confirmed up to the Apex Court, the writ petition was dismissed.
[l] The petitioner therefore moved the First Revenue Authority for seeking a mutation entry in her favour.
[m] By order dated 20/06/2012, the said authority rejected the request on the ground that no Court had observed that the mutation entry should be carried out in favour of the decree holder.
[n] The petitioner approached the Tahsildar who rejected the revision application by order dated 20/03/2013.
[o] The petitioner approached the S.D.O. and by order dated 10/07/2014, the S.D.O. allowed the Appeal u/s 247 of the M.L.R. Code.
[p] On 10/10/2014, the mutation entry was carried out in favour of the petitioner.
[q] The judgment debtors approached the Additional Collector, who rejected their request by order dated 28/10/2015.
[r] The judgment debtors then approached the Additional Commissioner, who rejected their revision by order dated khs/JUNE 2019/792
[s] By the impugned order dated 21/08/2018, the Minister for State (Revenue) allowed the revision of the judgment debtors. He quashed and set aside the orders of the Additional Commissioner dated 27/01/2017 and of other authorities, who held in favour of the decree holder and directed the S.D.O. to once again carry out an enquiry and pass a fresh order.
4. Learned Advocate for the judgment debtors has strenuously defended the impugned order of the State Revenue Minister contending that the said order is based on sound principles of Law and is in tune with all tenets of Law. He made a valiant attempt to support the said order and has sought the dismissal of this petition with heavy costs.
5. In my view, the Law in relation to mutation entries, pursuant to civil court
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
