JAYSHREE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is arising out of the proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner before this Court is original Respondent before the Tahasildar, whereas respondent no.4 is the applicant in the said proceeding, wherein Tahasildar has directed to restore possession of the property with respondent no.4. The petitioner is restrained from interfering with the possession of respondent no.4. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Revision Application No.75/2022 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jalna, wherein the said Revision came to be rejected.

(2.) The facts as appeared from the impugned order are that: the respondent lodged FIR on 8/11/2022 with Sadabazar Police Station, Jalna, alleging that he is dispossessed from his property ad-measuring 487 sq. mtrs. from CTS 10573. The complaint was filed that out of area admeasuring 657.35 sq. mtrs., land admeasuring 487 sq. meters. is purchased from one Anil Malpani and Suresh Malpani by sale deed dtd. 1/7/2021 and they are carrying a marble business on the said property. On 3/11/2022, this petitioner took forceful possession by breaking open the lock of the shop and by removing the board of the shop. It is alleged that this petitioner has also filed a case under Atrocities Act. The police on the basis of this FIR, reported to the Tahasildar that there is likely to be breath of peace.

(3.) On the basis of report of the police, the Tahasildar issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner filed her say stating that she has purchased the property from the original owner of the property to the extent of 647.35 Sq. meters. That was owned by one Narsingh Rao. Said Narsing Rao gave this land to his sister Laxmibai. Said Laxmibai sold land to Ratanlal in 2002 to extent of 487 sq. meters. However, she had not obtained consent of her son namely Surya Narayan and therefore Surya Narayan had filed a suit in the Civil Court, wherein it was held that there are six persons entitled to receive 1/6 share each. In 2021, said Malpani sold the land to Sunil Rathi that is present respondent no.4. However he did not pay the consideration amount to Malpani. Malpani therefore filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed. Heirs of original owner came to know that the ancestral property is sold to Sunil and therefore they had taken objection in the office of City Survey Office taking objection to the sale deed in favour of Rathi, thus his name is still not recorded in the Revenue Record. It is further case of the petitioner that some of the legal heirs of Halbi family, original owner sold the land in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of that even the entry is taken in the Revenue Record.