SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
NARENDRA MADANRAO ZAMBRE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR – Respondent
WP 820/2008



Advocates:
['V D SALUNKE', '', 'SJ SALUNKE', 'CHOUDHARY S S AND A JAGTAP', '', 'COPY SERVED ON PP', 'PP', 'R/ SERVED']

( 1 )

crwp820.08

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 820 OF 2008

WITH

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3996 OF 2017

Dr. Narendra s/o. Madanrao Zambre,

..

Petitioner

Age. 35 years, Occ. Service,

R/o. Baramati, Tq. Baramati,

Dist. Pune.

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra

..

Respondents

Through Police Station, Tuljapur,

Dist. Osmanabad.

2.

Subhash s/o. Bhagwatrao Salunke,

Age. 51 years, Occ. Agri.,

R/o. Kati, Tq. Tuljapur,

Dist. Osmanabad.

Mr.V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.S.D. Ghayal, A.P.P. for respondent No.1/State.

Mr.S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.2.

CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE &

S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.

DATED :

06.09.2017

J U D G M E N T [PER : T.V. NALAWADE,J.] :-

1.

This petition is filed for the relief of

quashing of F.I.R. in M.Case No.14 of 2008 dated

13.04.2008, registered with Tuljapur Police Station,

( 2 )

crwp820.08

Dist. Osmanabad. The crime is registered on the basis of

directions given by the learned Judicial Magistrate,

First Class, Tuljapur, under section 156(3) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure in Misc. Proceeding No.89 of 2008.

The private complaint was filed for offences punishable

under section 166, 167, 420, 466, 468, 469, 471 read with

section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In Criminal

Application No.3996 of 2017, filed in this Court, the

permission is sought by the original complainant to

produce some documents, which are in relation to the

dispute between the original complainant and one of the

accused persons. Both the sides are heard.

2.

It is the case of the complainant that on

27.01.1992 under registered sale-deed, he purchased land

admeasuring 7 H 86 R from Gat No.858 situated at village

Kati from Yojanadevi Deshmukh. In the past Yojanadevi

was owner of Survey No.322 admeasuring 11 H 34 R. Under

sale deed dated 27.04.1982 accused No.5-Amarsinha

Nimbalkar had purchased 10 Acres 16 Gunthas land from

( 3 )

crwp820.08

Yojanadevi for consideration of Rs.17,000/-. After the

transaction with Nimbalkar, Survey No.322 was divided

into pot-hissa and Survey No.322/1 was the number given

to the portion purchased by Nimbalkar. To the remaining

portion, Survey No.322/2 was given and that remained with

Yojanadevi. Its size was 7 H 14 R.

3.

After purchasing the aforesaid portion by

Nimbalkar, consolidation scheme was implemented in the

village. The land purchased by Nimbalkar was given Gat

No.859.

4.

Land Survey No.322/2, which was with Yojanadevi

and other land Survey No.323 having area of 72 R were

consolidated and to this consolidated portion Gat No.858

was given in or about year 1987-88. Thus, in the year

1992 when the complainant purchased land from Yojanadevi,

she was owner of land Gat No.858.

5.

Regular Civil Suit No.204 of 2000 was filed in

( 4 )

crwp820.08

the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tuljapur by

the complainant - Subhash Salunke for removal of

encroachment allegedly made by Nimbalkar on land Gat

No.858. When this suit was pending, Nimbalkar made

application to the Dy. Director of Land Record,

Aurangabad on 02.07.2003. He contended that he had

purchased land admeasuring 10 Acres 16 Gunthas under

sale-deed of 1982. He contended that at the time of

implementation of consolidation scheme, the measurements

were not taken as per the actual possession. He

contended that as the measurement was not made as per

actual possession, wrong map of new lands bearing Gat

numbers was created. He admitted that in the year 1993,

there was measurement made on the basis of sale-deed

executed in favour of complainant and he contended that

at that time wrong report was prepared and it was wrongly

shown that he had made encroachment. He had prayed in the

application to show the

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top