RITA PREMCHAND Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first petitioner claims to be the owner of two plots of land at Manori bearing Survey Nos. 267 and 268. The lands are stated to admeasure approximately 18 acres and 6 gunthas and are separated by a piece of land bearing Survey No. 260. The claim of the petitioners is that these lands were the ancestral lands of the first petitioner. The claim is that, under a Deed of Conveyance dated 25th February, 1899, the lands came to be purchased by Mr. Premchand Roychand from Hirjeebhai Manekjee Vasanwala. According to the petitioners, these lands were thereafter bequeathed by Premchand Roychand to his son Kikabhai Premchand, from whom in turn the lands devolved upon his brother Maneklal. Maneklal is stated to have bequeathed these properties to his wife Tara Premchand. The first petitioner is the daughter-in-law of Tara Premchand, while the second petitioner is the daughter of the first petitioner. In support of the plea of being lawful owners of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 267 and 268, the petitioners have relied upon a compilation of documents, inter alia, consisting of a copy of the indenture dated 25th February, 1899 and the Probates of the Wills of Maneklal Premchand and Tarabai Premchand granted by this Court in exercise of the Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction. Now it is also common ground that the revenue records in respect of the disputed survey numbers duly reflected the names of Kikabhai and Maneklal and of Shri Kishor Maneklal as the Kabjedar. In the compilation of documents, the petitioners have annexed copies of the relevant revenue records. Reliance has also been placed on an agreement entered into on 2nd July, 1946 between the Governor General in Council and Kikabhai by which in pursuance of the provisions of section 19 (1) (a) of the Defence of India Act, 1939, an agreement in regard to the payment of compensation was entered into, the property having been requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, 1939. Based on these documents, the petitioners claim to have a lawful title to the lands in question tracing origin to the document of 25th February, 1899.

(2.) THERE have been disputes between the petitioners on the one hand and the fifth respondent on the other. It appears that in or about 1990, the adjoining plot of land, Survey No. 260 was allotted by the State Government to a trust known as Param Poojya Swami Gangangiri Maharaj Ashram Charitable Trust for the purposes of cultivating vegetables, fruits and plants. The fifth respondent claims to be the Managing Trustee of the said Trust. Complaints were filed by the petitioners against the fifth respondent on the ground that he was, inter alia, obstructing the access of the petitioners. One such complaint which was made against the fifth respondent on 4th March, 1993 has been annexed to the writ petition. On 27th March, 1993, the petitioners once again wrote to the Tahsildar complaining of the fact that the fifth respondent had forged a 7 x 12 extract in respect of the property in which his name was shown as kul. The dispute between the petitioners and the fifth respondent is reflected in the complaints dated 5th June, 1993, 27th April, 1994 and 17th August, 1995 addressed by the petitioners to the Inspector of Police of the Malavani Police Station.

(3.) ON 20th October, 1995, an order was passed by the Tahsildar of which an intimation was furnished to the fifth respondent noting that on a visit at the site on 9th October 1995, no cultivation was found on the lands. In the circumstances, the application made by the fifth respondent for registering his name in the record of rights as a tenant was not accepted. The claim of the fifth respondent in respect of the alleged tenancy was thus rejected by the Tahsildar by the order dated 20th October, 1995. Thereafter on 4th April, 1996, the District Collector of Mumbai Suburban District addressed a letter to the fifth respondent recording that Survey No. 260 which was Government land was surrounded by lands bearing Survey Nos. 267, 268 and other survey numbers belonging to private parties. The fifth respondent was stated therein to have obstructed the access used by the private landlords which was through the land bearing Survey No. 260. Consequently, the fifth respondent was directed to remove the source of obstruction failing which it was stated that the Government would have to do so. In the said letter, the District Collector proceeded on the basis that the land bearing Survey Nos. 267 and 268 belonged to private parties.