BHIMRAO DNYANOBA PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, the rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioners challenge the order dated 4th May, 2002 passed by the lower Appellate Court rejecting the application for injunction filed by the petitioners during the pendency of the appeal filed by them against the decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit. The suit was filed by the petitioners for declaration that the order passed by the respondents on 26th November, 1991 to be void ab initio and that the petitioners have become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession and further for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from disturbing from peaceful possession over the suit property.

(3.) UPON hearing the learned Advocates and on perusal of the record, it is seen that it is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as the supervisor by the Ex-Ruler of Kolhapur State in relation to the various properties including the suit house. The suit house was allowed to be occupied by the petitioner No. 1 pursuant to his employment as the Supervisor. The petitioner No. 1 retired from the service in the year 1972, but continued to occupy the suit house without any obstruction or objection on the part of the Ex-Ruler. It is his further case that sometimes in the year 1972 a representative of the Ex-Ruler questioned the petitioner No. 1 about his right or interest in or to the house while he was carrying out certain repairs to the suit house and it was informed to the said representative of the Ex-Ruler by the petitioner No. 1 that the possession of the suit house was delivered to the petitioner No. 1 for the occupation of the petitioners permanently and thereby had assigned even the ownership of the suit house. Inspite of the said communication, there was no objection on the part of the Ex-Ruler for continuation of the petitioners occupation in the suit house even after his retirement. The property admeasuring about 300 acres wherein the suit house exists came to be acquired by the State Government in the year 1986. Thereafter, notice was served upon the petitioners to vacate the suit house on the ground that the suit property had been acquired by the State Government. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application to the authorities bringing to their notice that though the land was acquired, the house in occupation of the petitioners was never acquired and the same belongs to the petitioner No. 1 as it was given to the petitioner No. 1 for his permanent residence and in any case the petitioners continued to occupy the said house without any objection even after the retirement of the petitioner No. 1 since 1972 and the period of 12 years since then having passed, the petitioner No. 1 had acquired title to the suit house by way of adverse possession. The application was rejected and, therefore, the petitioners filed the suit. The trial Court, however, dismissed the suit and the petitioners have filed the appeal against the decree of the dismissal of the suit and during pendency of the appeal, the petitioners filed an application for temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from disturbing possession of the petitioners in relation to the suit house but the same was rejected by the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal.