Nirmala Raghunath Herwadkar & Anr. v. Raigonda Adgonda Patil & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. It is against this backdrop, I have heard Mr.Killedar, learned counsel for the petitioners. He submitted that the petitioners are owners of the suit property and that the respondents were never 2 in possession thereof as tenants. He further submitted that the Talathi ought…
Judgment
Mr.Vijay Killedar for the petitioners. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATED : 1ST DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. .
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This petition is directed against the concurrent orders passed by the revenue authorities in RTS proceedings. It appears that a civil suit, instituted by the respondents against the petitioners, is pending and in the said suit the court has passed an order of injunction against the petitioners. In the present proceedings, the revisional authority, while disposing of the revision vide order dated 21.1.2009, has observed that remedy of the petitioners is to institute proceedings either before tenancy authority or before civil court for appropriate relief.
Operative part
It is against this backdrop, I have heard Mr.Killedar, learned counsel for the petitioners. He submitted that the petitioners are owners of the suit property and that the respondents were never 2 in possession thereof as tenants. He further submitted that the Talathi ought not to have made disputed entries in the record of rights in the absence of any authenticate material in favour of the respondents showing them as tenants in the suit land. In support, he placed reliance upon the judgments in Bansrajidevi Bhuval Singh Ramniranjan Singh & Ors Vs. Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2006(6) Bom. C.R. 51 and Nalini w/o Onkar Patil V. Girdhar s/o Kashinath Patil & Ors. Bom. C.R.287. The respondents claim that they are in possession of the suit land as tenants since prior to 1957. In my opinion, both these judgments, relied upon by the petitioners, are of no avail to the petitioners, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the findings recorded in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment. Admittedly, the respondents are in possession of the suit lands and they claim that they are in possession thereof as tenants. Keeping that in view and considering the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below and that there is sufficient material on record to sustain those findings and considering extremely limited jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to disturb the findings of fact, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petition is dismissed. Dismissal of the writ petition, however, shall not preclude the petitioners from approaching the concerned authority either under the provisions of B.T. & A. L. Act or to institute a suit in 3 civil court for appropriate relief. If any such proceedings is instituted by the petitioners, it is open to the petitioners to approach revenue authority afresh for effecting necessary changes in the record of rights on the basis of final decision in the proceeding. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 01 Dec 2009. The bench was D B BHOSALE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.