High Court · 2025

Legal Reasoning

wp-568-2025.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.568 OF 20251.Gajanan Laxmanrao Beedkar2.Nagnath Laxmanrao Beedkar .. PetitionerVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough its Secretary,Home Department, Mantralaya,Mumbai.2.The Superintendent of Police,Jalna, District Jalna.3.The Police Inspector,Navapur Police Station, Partur, Dist. Jalna.4.The Circle Officer, Ashti,Tq. Partur, District Jalna.5.Madalasabai Manmathappa Naralkar .. Respondents…Ms. Anagha Pedgaonkar, Advocate h/f Mr. S. P. Urgunde, Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, APP for respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.... CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE : 19 AUGUST 2025 ORDER (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) :-.Present petition has been filed on behalf of two brothers fordirections to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to handover the suit land bearing GutNo.24 admeasuring 1 H 26 R situated at Banachiwadi, Taluka Partur,[1] wp-568-2025.odtDistrict Jalna, by giving proper police protection. It is also the prayer thatpending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, respondentNo.4 be directed to decide the representation of the petitioners dated17.10.2023 and act as per judgment and decree dated 12.10.2018passed by the learned trial Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.237 of 2012.2.Heard learned Advocate Ms. Anagha Pedgaonkar holding forlearned Advocate Mr. S. P. Urgunde for the petitioners and learned APPMr. S. A. Gaikwad for respondent Nos.1 to 4/State. There is no necessityto issue notice to respondent No.5.3.Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitionershad purchased land admeasuring 1 H 36 R out of 8 H 34 R from GutNo.24 (Old Survey No.59) from respondent No.5 MadalasabaiManmathappa Naralkar by registered sale deed on 17.05.1994.Respondent No.5 had filed suit against the petitioners for cancellation ofsale deed and perpetual injunction contending that she was taken to theSub Registrar’s office under the pretext of taking loan from the bank andthere her thumb impression were taken on paper and she wasdefrauded. The said suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit No.48 of 2009 came tobe partly decreed. The sale deed was declared as null and void and notbinding on respondent No.5 herein. The petitioners were then restrainedfrom creating any third party interest. But then the suit claim for[2] wp-568-2025.odtcancellation of sale deed No.1450 dated 17.05.1994 in respect of 68 Rstood dismissed. The present petitioners and others filed Regular CivilAppeal No.237 of 2012 before the learned Principal District Judge,Jalna. The said appeal came to be allowed by judgment and decreedated 12.10.2018. The impugned judgment by learned Civil Judge JuniorDivision, Partur in Regular Civil Suit No.48 of 2009 was set aside. Thesaid suit was dismissed. Now, the present petitioners are askingrespondent No.5 to handover the possession, but she is not ready forthe same and, therefore, the petitioners had requested that the policeprotection be given. The representation was made vide letter dated17.10.2023. In fact, the petitioners are the legal owners of the suit landand they have right of possession. Petitioners have no other remedyand, therefore, they have approached this Court.4.Learned APP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4/State submitsthat the remedy for the petitioners lies in institution of the suit, if at allthey are not in possession. 5.The first and the foremost fact to be noted is that copy of the saledeed dated 17.05.1994 has been filed on record i.e. sale deed registeredNo.1450. It appears that there were two sale deeds on 17.05.1994bearing Nos.1450 and 1451. In the sale deeds there has to be therecital about handing over possession. Accordingly, in sale deed[3] wp-568-2025.odtregistered No.1450, we found that such recital is there which was inrespect of land admeasuring 68 R. Similar would be the position asregards the other sale deed. The suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit No.48 of2009 filed by respondent No.5 was for declaration and injunction and asaforesaid, it was partly decreed. Sale deed bearing No.1451 for 68 Rwas held to be not binding on respondent No.5 and was declared as nulland void. In respect of suit claim for cancellation of sale deed No.1450,it was dismissed. The injunction was only in respect of creating any kindof obstruction to the possession of plaintiff over suit property to theextent of 68 R land i.e. vide sale deed No.1451. In short, it appears thatthe learned trial Judge held that respondent No.5 still possesses 68 Rland involved in sale deed No.1451, but the Appellate Court in RegularCivil Appeal No.237 of 2012 appears to have dismissed the entire suit.That means, it was held that by those sale deeds the possession inrespect of the lands mentioned therein was handed over by respondentNo.5 to the present petitioners. It is then pleaded in the petition thatrespondent No.5 had approached this Court by way of filing SecondAppeal No.342 and 343 of 2019 and the Second Appeals are stillpending, but there is no stay granted by this Court. Now, byrepresentation dated 17.10.2023 to the Circle Officer Ashti, TalukaPartur, District Jalna, both the petitioners have stated that though in the7/12 extracts their names have been mutated in the ownership column,[4] wp-568-2025.odtyet respondent No.5 herein refused to handover the possession andforcibly cultivated the land and then it is stated that the police protectionbe granted for taking the possession.6.This appears to be the classic example for unnecessary litigationon the criminal side. When the Second Appeals are still pending, thepetitioners ought to have approached in that matter and to the uttersurprise, it appears that they have taken a contrary stand than thatappears to have been taken by them before the trial Court as well as theAppellate Court. Certainly, their contention that was though intentionallythe entire judgment of the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Courthas not been filed and only decree has been filed, yet it can be inferredthat they had taken the stand that on the date of sale deed, thepossession of the property which they had purchased, was handed overto them by respondent No.5. That contention was then appears to havebeen accepted by the first Appellate Court, still now the petitioners arecontending that they are not in possession. In their representation dated17.10.2023 of which copy has been given, they have not stated whenrespondent No.5 has taken forcible possession of both the lands.Further, when this representation was given on 17.10.2023, then why tillfiling of the present writ petition on 27.02.2025, no steps were taken bythe petitioners in any form in Second Appeals and now, the petitionersare seeking direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 i.e. Superintendent of[5] wp-568-2025.odtPolice, Jalna, Police Inspector, Navapur Police Station, Taluka Partur,District Jalna and the Circle Officer, Ashti, Taluka Partur, District Jalna tohand over the suit land by giving police protection. For the landadmeasuring 1 H 36 R that means the entire land under both the saledeeds, police protections are not given for taking forcible possession andwhen effective legal step on the civil side is available, no such prayercan be granted. There was no question of giving any direction torespondent No.4 to decide the representation when the substantivematters i.e. second appeals are pending before this Court. 7.When this is an unnecessary litigation, we pointed out to thelearned Advocate for the petitioners that we would be imposing cost fortaking unnecessary time of the Court. She prayed for leniency since shewas holding over, however, we are not inclined to accept the same.Unnecessary litigation cannot be allowed to see the light of the next day.In the present scenario of huge pendency, the Advocates should avoidunnecessary litigation and, therefore, we proceed to pass the followingorder :-ORDERI)Criminal Writ Petition stands rejected.II)The petitioners to deposit cost of Rs.20,000/- with the HighCourt Legal Services, Sub Committee, Aurangabad within a period[6] wp-568-2025.odtof one month from today.III)In case of failure on the part of the petitioners to pay thecost as aforesaid would lead to recovery of the same as arrears ofland revenue.IV)Place the matter for further compliance on 24.09.2025.[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGEJUDGEscm[7]