KADARBHAI NOORALI BOHARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners (who are Opponents Nos. 3-A to 3-D in Regular Darkhast No. 13 of 1983 of the file of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Amalner) are challenging the orders passed in the said Darkhast whereunder it was directed that the property in question should be delivered in possession of the original applicant-decree holder.

(2.) It would be convenient to refer to the parties by their names and not as applicants-opponent or petitioners-respondents. City Survey No. 813/A/14 situated at Amalner (which is now final Plot No. 215/A was originally an Inam property of Class VI-B. The property was owned by respondents Nos. 4 to 7 (hereinafter referred to as Bhirodes). On account of the inferior Village Watan Abolition Act, 1958 the said Inam was abolished and the question arose as to whom the land should be regranted. The concerned revenue authorities initially regranted the land to Bhirodes. They applied for conversion of regranted tenure from new tenure to the old tenure. This prayer was also granted some time in the year 1965. Thereafter Bhirodes sold the land to Bagul (respondent No. 3) under the two sale-deeds of 1965 and 1966.

(3.) The Collector felt that the regrant in favour of Bhirodes may not be lawful and hence a suo motu proceeding or inquiry was started. On 26-11-1966 the Collector set aside the regrant in favour of Bagul and directed a fresh inquiry. The matter went to the Sub-Divisional Officer. After making inquiries he passed an order of regrant in favour of Kadarbhai (the predecessor in title of the present petitioners). This order was challenged by Bagul. He took various proceedings such as appeals etc. and finally he filed Writ Petition No. 946 of 1979 in this Court. On 23-1-1984 the Court granted rule and passed an order that the regrant in favour of Kadarbhai should be set aside and that the regrant in favour of Bhirodes should be restored. It is this order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 946 of 1979 that was put in execution by Bagul by filing Regular Darkhast No. 13 of 1983 in the Court of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Amalner. Certain objections to the execution were raised. For example, it was contended that the execution was not tenable as the order passed in the writ petition has not been transmitted to the Civil Court under section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was also contended that the said order in the writ petition did not contemplate an order directing the delivery of possession to Bagul. There were certain other contentions as well. The executing Court rejected all these contentions and passed an order that the regranted property should be handed over to Bagul. It is this order that is being challenged before me.