27.207.21 CRA.doc

ISM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 207 OF 2021

BAPUSO VITTHAL MANE

….APPLICANT

V/s.

RAMCHANDRA DEV (TRUST), THR

....RESPONDENTS

TRUSTEES, SHRI. YOGESH VIJAY

DESHPANDE

Mr. Pritam S. Nigade, Advocate for the Applicant.

Mr. Ojas Deolankar, Advocate for Respondents.

CORAM :

NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE:

MARCH 16, 2022.

P.C.:

1)

A Public Trust initiated Suit being R.C.S. No. 255/2020 on the

file of Civil Judge Senior Division, Baramati seeking injunction not to

disburse amount of compensation.

2)

Claim in the Suit was objected by the Applicant-Defendant nos.

2 to 7 vide Application Exh. 17 alleging that Suit is barred by law,

Suit is under valued, bundle of facts does not disclose cause of action

and as such, sought rejection of Plaint. Such prayer is rejected vide

impugned order dated 18/09/2021. As such, this Petition.

3)

Submissions of learned counsel for the Applicant are,

1/3

IRESH SIDDHARAM

MASHAL

Digitally signed by IRESH

SIDDHARAM MASHAL

Date: 2022.03.28 17:52:58

+0530

27.207.21 CRA.doc

ownership under The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,

1948 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘BT & AL Act’ for the sake of brevity)

under the provisions of Section 32-M is already concluded in favour

of petitioner which has attained finality. Apart from above, he would

claim that since the issue is about apportionment of amount of

compensation of 7 Crores, the Court fee ought to have been paid on

valuation of the Suit claim based on same. Learned counsel for the

Applicant as such would urge that Court below has failed to consider

the same while passing the order impugned.

4)

Counsel for Respondent would oppose the claim and supports

the impugned order.

5)

It appears that originally, the land was Devsthan Inam land

allotted in favour of Plaintiff, a religious Public Trust. Said land

remained in Vahivat of Dattatraya Deshpande, who have inducted

present Applicant as tenant.

6)

Proceedings taken out under Bombay Tenancy and Agriculture

Land Act against said Vahivatdar Mr. Deshpande, 32-M certificate

claimed to have been issued in favour of the Applicant. Admittedly,

Plaintiff to the present Suit was not party to the said proceedings

2/3

27.207.21 CRA.doc

initiated under BT & AL Act. As such, ownership claimed under said

Act will not bind Respondent/Plaintiff.

7)

In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that proceedings in

favour of the Applicant will operate as res-judicata or Suit in question

in view of declaration of ownership by the Tribunal under BT and AL

Act in favour of the Applicant.

8)

The contention that claim in the Suit is undervalued also does

not hold any substance as Suit is under Section 32 and 34 of Specific

Relief Act for injunction and declaration. It is not the case of the

Respondent-Plaintiff that Plaintiff sought disbursement of amount of

compensation which was deposited towards acquisition of the Suit

land. What is sought by the Respondent-Plaintiff is, not to disburse

the amount in favour of the Respondent. In that view of the matter,

considering the nature of relief claimed, it cannot be said that suit

claim is under valued.

9)

In that view of the matter, no illegality or material irregularity is

noticed in the order impugned. Application as such fails, stands

dismissed.

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]

3/3