Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1978Bom4
Apte, J.1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff whose suit for declaration that a certain order passed by the Government was illegal and void and for certain other reliefs has been dismissed by the trial Court on preliminary grounds that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 4 of the Revenue Jurisdiction Act and .the suit was also barred by res judicata in view of the decision of the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1426 of 1962, D/- 8-12-1964 (Bom).2. The facts giving rise to this litigation may now be summarised.3. The suit property consists of 13 different pieces of agricultural land situate at Mamurabad in the District and Taluka Jalgaon. These lands altogether measure 18 acres 15 gunthas. One of these 13 lands bears Survey No. 491. It is not necessary to give the numbers of the other twelve lands.4. It is common ground that these 13 lands were formerly held as 'Gao Hal' (inam land). Accordingly, the g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC436; (1964)66BOMLR129; [1964]1SCR200
Mudholkar, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay affirming the decree of the District Judge, Thana, setting aside the decree in favour of the Plaintiff-appellant. 2. The relevant facts which are no longer in dispute are these : The plaintiff's family are grantees of the Patilki Watan of some villages in Umbergaon taluka of the Thana District of Maharashtra, including the villages of Solsumbha, Maroli and Vavji. Defendants 2 to 4 also belong to the family of the plaintiff. The plaintiff represents the seniormost branch of the family while the defendants 2 to 4 represent other branches. The dispute with which we are concerned in this appeals relates to the Patilki of Solsumbha. Under the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 (III of 1874) the person who actually performs the duty of a hereditary Office for the time being is called an Officiator. It is common ground that the Officiator had been selected from the branch of the plaintiff from th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC887; 1982(1)SCALE418; (1982)2SCC79; [1982]3SCR341; 1982(14)LC784(SC)
1. These nine consolidated appeals on certificate are directed from a common judgment and decree of the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore dated June 22, 1962 which affirmed, subject to a modification, the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharwar, dated July 5, 1956, substantially dismissing the plaintiff's claim for declaration of title to, and possession of certain watan properties and decreeing instead his alternative claim for partition and separate possession of his one-sixth share therein.2. The principal question in controversy in these appeals is whether Sections and 4 of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans Abolition Act, 1950 (for short 'Act No. 60 of 1950') and Sections and 7 of the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955 (for short 'Act No. 22 of 1955'), which provided for abolition of watans and alienations in the merged territories, resumption of watan land and its re-grant, to the holder for the time being, which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(1)BomCR89
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Both the petition and the second appeal were filed by the one and the same person, namely, Vithu Hira Mahar. It appears that he died during the pendency of this petition and his legal heirs have been brought on record.2. In writ petition petitioner Vithu challenged the Order of the Additional Commissioner, dated 6-4-1985 as per Exhibit 'K' to the petition and in the second appeal appellant Vithu had challenged the Order of the District Judge, Pune, (P.V. Kakadae) dated 18-6-1985 in appeal filed by him. This appeal before the Additional District Judge was filed by Vithu against the order of the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 2353 of 1979 by which the trial Court had decreed the suit of the respondents - plaintiffs.3. Though the writ petition and the second appeal are arising out of different orders, common questions of fact and law are involved in both of them and hence they were tagged together and were heard together.4. There is a chequered history to the liti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2006(9)SC64; 2006(10)SCALE21; (2006)11SCC161
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The ancestors of Appellant were seized and possessed of watan lands. They were known as Watandars and the land was classified in the record of rights as 'Patil Inam Land of Class VIB'. The ancestor of Respondent was inducted as a tenant in Survey Nos. 208/1 and 208/2 of Village Yaval in the District of Jalgaon, State of Maharashtra.3. The erstwhile State of Bombay enacted the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Tenancy Act'). The Tenancy Act was enacted to amend the law relating to tenancies of agricultural lands and to make certain other provisions in regard thereto. By reason of the said provisions having regard to the economic and social conditions of peasants and for ensuring full and efficient use of land for agriculture, it was considered expedient to assume management of estates held by landholders and to regulate and impose restrictions on the transfer of agricultural lands, dwelling houses, sites and lands appurtena...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR350; 2009(111)BomLR473; 2009(2)MhLj220
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The land involved in the present dispute is survey No. 38/3 which admeasures about one acre and 5 gunthas in village Malshiras, District Solapur. Kondi Bapur Mahar, the father of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was the landlord of the aforesaid suit land. He sold the land to Respondent No. 4 who in turn sold it to the petitioner. The father of Respondent No. 1 was a tenant on that land from 1951-1952 to 1955-1956. The possession of the land was handed over to the landlord in 1956, according to the petitioner. Thereafter the landlord continued cultivating the land, personally. In 1970-71, the Additional Tehsildar, Malshiras initiated an enquiry Under Section 32(1B) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act (for short, 'BT&AL; Act') suo moto. The tenant's statement was recorded and according to the petitioner, he had expressed his inability to purchase the land. A copy of this statement has been annexed to the petition. The statement of the landlord was also recorded by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(1)ALLMR1142; 2003(3)BomCR18; 2003(2)MhLj381
S.A. Bobde, J.1. The petitioner, who is a tenant of agricultural lands, challenges the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 1-1-1987 by which that Tribunal has confirmed the order of the two Courts below. In effect, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has confirmed the orders by which the purchase of the land in question by the petitioner-tenant has been declared ineffective and the land has been directed to be disposed of under the provisions of Section 32P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bombay Tenancy Act'). 2. The petitioners are heirs of the original tenant and the respondent wasthe landlord. The land in question is survey No. 30, situate at village Karkamb inPandharpur taluka. 3. The land in question is an inam land governed by the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Watans Abolition Act'). The respondent is a Watandar. On 5-2-1969, proceedings for purchase of the land ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(3)ALLMR770; 1998(1)BomCR639
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J. 1. The respondents were owners of the land S. No. 2/5 admeasuring 5 acres 12 gunthas situate at village Khamgaon, being Mahar Watan land of Inam Class VI-B under the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as 'Watans Abolition Act'. The Inam under dispute came to be abolished and resumed by the Slate with a effect from the appointed day viz. 1st August, 1958. The said lands were liable to be regranted to the authorised holder unless the same were found liable to be regranted to the authorised holder under section 6 or unauthorised holder under section 9 of the Watans Abolition Act, The said land came to be regranted to the respondents under the Watans Abolition Act on 25th May, 1963. On 10th October, 1972 the respondents entered into an agreement to sell the lands to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 22,000/-. A sum of Rs. 11,000/- out of the total amount of Rs. 22,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the respondents under a receipt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1994(2)BomCR607
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Question is whether the suit lands were 'Watan Lands' as defined under section 2(h) of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watan (Abolition) Act, 1950 (the Abolition Act) on or before 1st February 1951 when the said Act was brought into force. 2. The point arises against the following undisputed factual background. Survey No. 592/1, 6 acres, 34 gunthas, Survey No. 592/2, 4 acres and 14 gunthas and Survey No. 592/3, 4 acres and 11 gunthas from village Kudas taluka Khed, District Pune, were the ancestral property of the plaintiff- Shankar Kulkarni. They were 'watan property' under the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 (The Watan Act). In the Inam Patrak of 1898-99 (Exh. 102) it is mentioned that a Judi was levied upon these lands which the predecessors of the plaintiff were paying. In the Inam Patrak of 1909-10 (Exh. 103), it is mentioned that the Government started recovering full assessment from the predecessors of the plaintiff who were Watandars. The plaintiff had app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1990(3)BomCR261; (1989)91BOMLR186
Sujata Manohar, J.The petitioner claims to be a tenant of the respondents in respect of Survey No. 227 admeasuring 21 acres and 22 gunthas situated at village Mandwad, Taluka Nandgaon, District Nasik and assessed at Rs. 5.50. According to the petitioner he is cultivating this land as a tenant of the respondents for more than 45 years.2. In 1957 the 1st respondent Shaikh Bashir Shaikh Pathan filed a suit against the petitioner under section 29 read with section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 before the Tenancy Court, being Tenancy Suit No. 121 of 1957, for possession on the ground that he required the lands bona fide for personal cultivation. The Tenancy Mahalkari, Nandgaon by his order dated 29-10-1958 held that tenancy of the petitioner to the extent of 1/4th part of the said survey number should be terminated and possession of this 1/4th portion amounting to 5 acres and 15 gunthas should be handed over to the applicant landlord. The petitioner preferred an ...
Tag this Judgment!