Khatunabi Abdul Ajij Dhole & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Mr. Mandar Limaye for the petitioners. Ms.S.S.Bhende, A.G.P for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.S.G.Karandikar for respondent No.3. Mr.Sagar Amedkar for respondent Nos.7A to 7G. Mr.Jitendra Oak for respondent No.8B. Mr.Niranjan Shimpi, for intervenor in C.A.W.No.2814/2011. CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 05th SEPTEMBER 2012. P.C.: . Heard Mr.Limaye appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Perused the orders under challenge. 2} Having perused them, what I find is that the petitioners complaint is that all Authorities have dismissed their challenge to the Mutation Entries on the presumption that they have been based on the proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and, therefore, the remedy of the petitioners is not to resort to the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 but initiating some other proceedings. 3} To my mind, even if the petitioners claim title in the lands in question on 2 the basis of the concluded orders and proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, as between them and private respondents if they desire to seek a declaration with regard to their status and title in the property, then, nothing prevents them from approaching the competent Civil Court and filing a civil suit to assert the same. Merely because at one stage the petitioners case is that the lands vest in the government, by itself will not mean that the Civil Court cannot consider their grievance and adjudicate on the issue of title. The Civil Court is bound to take into consideration all such contentions and then adjudicate the matter. Keeping open all options in that behalf and clarifying that the orders under challenge do not prevent the petitioners from instituting the suit in a competent Civil Court, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 4} In view of the disposal of the writ petition, Civil Application No.2814 of 2011 does not survive and the same is rejected.

(S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J)