SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1056

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SARANG V. KOTWAL, J
Concord Co-operative Housing Society – Appellant
Versus
Amedmal Bhatewada (deceased) – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 285 OF 2022 | WRIT PETITION NO. 6701 OF 2022 | CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 406 OF 2022 | WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO. 13161 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G.S. Godbole, S. M. Gorwadkar, Anil Anturkar, R. D. Soni, Virag Tulzapurkar, Surel Shah, Mayur Khandeparkar
For the Respondents: G.S. Godbole, S. M. Gorwadkar, Anil Anturkar, R. D. Soni, Virag Tulzapurkar, Surel Shah, Mayur Khandeparkar

The Court held that an application for a precept under Section 54 of the C.P.C. is administrative, not execution, and is not subject to limitation, allowing for the partition of land without adjudicating ownership disputes.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 54 - Parties dispute over agricultural land assessed to revenue - Multiple petitions concerning common legal questions regarding ownership, legal heirs, and possession rights - Applicants unable to establish locus standi to challenge the order regarding sending precept to Collector for partitioning land. (Paras 1-7)

(B) Land Revenue Code - Procedure for partitioning agricultural land - Role of Collector emphasized - Court affirmed that sending precept under Section 54 of C.P.C. is administrative and does not require adjudication of legal heirs' rights. (Paras 28-34)

(C) Limitation Act - Application for precept not barred by limitation, as considered a reminder for the Court to perform its duty, not execution of decree. (Paras 30-39)

(D) Natural Justice - No violation of principles as the application was procedural - The rights of parties not adjudicated at this stage. (Paras 43-46)

Findings of Court:
Dismissal of multiple petitions upheld, confirming the original decree's status regarding land partition by the Collector without further adjudication on ownership disputes.

Result: All applications dismissed.

Table of Content
1. introduction of common disputes and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. historical ownership and disputed claims. (Para 9)
3. arguments on locus standi and jurisdiction. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. legal heirs' claims and abatement issues. (Para 16 , 17 , 21 , 22)
5. court's observations on procedural requirements. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
6. confirmation of court's order and implications. (Para 45 , 46 , 47)
7. final dismissal of applications and orders. (Para 49 , 51)

JUDGMENT:

1. All these matters are decided by this common judgment because all the parties agree that all these matters involve common questions of law and are based on the common history regarding the facts and the disputed facts. In all these matters, notices were issued for final disposal. All the parties were duly served with such notices and learned Counsel appearing before me agree that the matters can be decided finally at this stage.

2. I have heard Shri G.S. Godbole, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants in CRA No.285/2022, Shri S. M. Gorwadkar, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in WP No.6701/2022, Shri Anil Anturkar, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in WP(St) No.13161/2022, Shri R. D. Soni, learned counsel for the Applicant in CRA No.406/2022, Shri Virag Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Counsel, Shri Surel Shah, and Shri Mayur Khandeparkar, learned counsel , for the respective contesting Respondents.

3. C.R.A. No.285/2022 is preferred by Concord Co-operative Housing Society and its Chairman & Treasurer. The society claims to be the owner of the property.

4. Writ Petition (Stamp) No.13161/2022 is filed by Venkatesh Landmark, through its Partners, who are developing the property by making construction on the property.

5. C.R.A. No.406/2022 is filed by Yashcon Urban Development LLP, through its Partner. The Applicant claims to be owner of a part of the subject properties.

6. Writ Petition No.6701/2022 is filed by one of the members of the Concord Co-operative Housing Society.

7. The contesting Respondents, in all these matters, claim to be the legal heirs of one Amedmal Indrabhan Bhatewada. In all these matters, the Applicants/Petitioners have challenged the order dated 27.4.2022 passed by the 10th Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Civil Misc. Application No.1658/2021. In C.R.A. No.285/2022, further prayers are made for permission to file certain documents which were not available at the time of passing of the impugned order in the Court of 10th Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune.

Subject properties :

8. The dispute is about the following properties :

a] Land bearing Survey No.214, Hissa No.1/1 admeasuring 00 Hectare 97 Ares + pot kharaba 0 Hectare 02 Ares, assessed Rs.0.94, situated at village Lohegaon, Taluka– Haveli, District–Pune.

b] Land bearing Survey No.214, Hissa No.1/4 admeasuring 1 Hectare 15 Ares, assessed Rs.1.06/-, situated at village Lohegaon, Taluka–Haveli, District–Pune.

(Both these properties together are hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject properties’).

9. Brief history and facts :

i. The subject properties were originally owned by one Bapu Kashiba Devkar. He died on 27.3.1939. After that, those subject properties were held by his heirs Shankar Bapu Devkar and Kisan Bapu Devkar. Their names were entered by Mutation Entry No.1942.

ii. Amedmal filed Small Causes Suit No.4658/1935 against Shankar Bapu Devkar for recovery of money. The suit was decreed.

iii. Darkhast No.560/1937 was filed by Amedmal for executing the decree in Suit No.4658/1935, in which half undivided share of Shankar was attached and was put up for sale in execution.

iv. On 19.12.1939, Amedmal Bhatewada purchased Shankar’s share in the subject properties in the Court auction. His name was added in the Other Rights column in the record of rights by Mutation Entry No.2027, but, it was without possession.

v. On 20.1.1940, the sale was confirmed by the Executing Court and the Sale Certificate No.65/1940 was g

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top