BHIKUBAI NATHU PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri. Mantri, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Shri. V. B. Ghatge, learned A. P. P. appears for Respondent No. 1 and waives service. Shri. Deshmukh, learned Counsel i/b Shri. Palnitkar, advocate appears and waives service for Respondents No. 2 & 3.Rule. By consent, Rule returnable forthwith.

(2.) THE Respondent No. 2 was the owner of the land in dispute bearing G. No. 84 of revenue village Chamgaon, Taluka Dharangaon, District Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as the said land ). By an agreement of sale dated14-6-1993, the Respondent No. 2 agreed to sell the said land to the petitioner no.1 and executed a registered agreement of sale in her favour. It is alleged by the petitioners that on the next day i. e. on15th June, 1993, the Respondent No. 2 handed over the possession of the said land to the petitioner. This fact of alleged handing over of possession is denied by the Respondent No. 2 who claims to be in possession of the said land. It is alleged that the permission of the Collector under Section43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the B. T. & A. L. Act) is required to be obtained before the execution of the sale deed and hence the sale deed has not been executed till today for want of such permission. THE petitioner, however, claims that out of the total agreed consideration amount of Rs. 92,600/-, an amount of Rs. 77,500/- was paid to the Respondent No. 2 and only a sum of Rs. 15,100/- is to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. It appears that dispute arose between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 2, which led the petitioners to file a suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 254/98 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated14-6-1993. In the said suit, the petitioner alleged that the possession of the said land was handed over to her in part performance of the agreement of sale and claimed injunction restraining the Respondent No. 2 from disturbing her possession and also claimed injunction restraining the Respondent No. 2 from alienating the suit property. THE trial Court granted ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the Respondent No. 2 from alienating the suit property. THE prayer of interim injunction restraining the Respondent No. 2 from disturbing the alleged possession of the petitioners is yet to be heard by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon.

(3.) THE Executive Magistrate did not even discuss this point. What was said regarding point no.2 is quoted below in verbatim: Point 2 : Civil Suit is pending about ownership, concerned party should not create law and order problem.