The High Court confirmed rights established under a 1955 partition decree, emphasizing that the execution of civil court judgments must be respected without unauthorized administrative interference.

JUDGMENT :

N.J.Jamadar, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. All these petitions assail the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 27 September 2024 passed by the Minister (Revenue and Forest Department) in Revision Application No.3019/10232/Pra.Kra.240/J-6, whereby the said revision application came to be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, in RTS/337/2009 and RTS/338/2009 dated 05 May 2012, which, in turn, had affirmed the orders passed by the authorities below, and directed Tahasildar, Nashik, to prepare the revised partition chart / vatap takta to execute the partition decree in terms of the judgment of the High Court in FA No.129 of 1951 dated 12 October 1955, and further orders dated 2 July 2025 in Review Application No.3024/4072/Pr.K.416/J-6 and 9 July 2025 in Review Application No.3024/4073/Pr.K.416/J-6 whereby the review applications also came to be dismissed.

3. As the genesis of the petitions is in the proceedings to execute a partition decree and the Petitioners in all the writ petitions, except the Petitioner in Petition No. 10519 of 2025, claimed to be the purchasers of the portions of the suit properties from the parties to the partition suit or their successors-in-interest and identical questions of facts and law arise for determination, all the petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

4. The background facts are required to be noted in a little detail as the litigation has a history of about 75 years.

4.1 Late Ragho was the common ancestor. He had four sons, Laxman, Bhiva, Malhari and Rama. Rama and others had instituted Special Civil Suit No.26 of 1949 for partition and separate possession of their share of the lands bearing Survey No.80/3 admeasuring 3H 17 Are and Survey No.867 admeasuring 7 H and 3 R situated at Nashik (the suit properties)

4.2 Learned Civil Judge decreed the suit and directed Defendant Nos.1 to 5 therein to put the Plaintiffs in possession of the land bearing Survey No.80/3. It was further declared that the Plaintiffs were entitled to partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share in pot hissa 1 and 2 of Survey No.867 from Defendant Nos.1 to 4.

4.3 The Defendants preferred an appeal being First Appeal No.129 of 1951 before the High Court. In the said appeal, the parties arrived at a settlement and, pursuant thereto, the said Appeal came to be decreed to the effect that the Plaintiffs would be entitled to recover possession of Survey No.80/3 and 1/4th share in Survey No.867/1 and 867/2. The partition of the land bearing Survey No.867/1 and 867/2 was directed to be effected by the Collector. Directions were issued for payment of past and future mesne profits.

4.4 The Plaintiffs filed execution petition being Special Darkhast No.1 of 1971 for execution of the compromise decree. By an order dated 13 January 1992, the Superintendent of Land Records effected the partition of the suit lands. Land bearing Survey No.80/3 admeasuring 3H 17R was allotted to the share of the Plaintiffs. The land bearing Survey No.867/1B, admeasuring 2H 66R was also allotted to the Plaintiffs and the land admeasuring 4H 37R, bearing Survey No.867/1A, was allotted to the shar