RAOSAHEB ANAND SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant has preferred this Appeal against the Judgment and order passed by Addl. District Judge Sangli dated 18. 8. 1989 dismissing the Appeal and confirming the Judgment and Order passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli dated 30. 12. 1982 dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration and injunction against the State.

(2.) One Anand Krishna Shinde, father of the present Plaintiff, died on 8. 3. 1980. He held agricultural land bearing R. S. No. 422, which was situated at village Kupwad, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli as an owner subject to restrain regarding impartibility. The deceased Ananda bequeathed the suit land to the present plaintiff under his Will. Therefore, the Plaintiff acquired title thereto on the death of his father ananda. The deceased Ananda sought permission for changing the tenure of the suit land in 1965. The land was Class II Inam land as contemplated under Section 29 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue code. He then transferred the portion of the suit land to various parties upto 1968. In 1978 the permission for N. A. was canceled by the revenue Commissioner, Pune. He was further directed to seek waiver of restrictions regarding impartibility in order to seek permission for changing the tenures. However, he could not seek waiver of the said restrictions because of the inability to pay the necessary compensation. Subsequently he executed an agreement of sale for transferring of the suit land to one Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana ltd. And delivered the possession thereof towards part performance of the contract on 19. 10. 1975. Without taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the Tahsildar, Miraj issued a notice for eviction on 21. 7. 1980 and allegedly prepared bogus Possession Receipt dated 5. 8. 1980. The plaintiff came to know about the same after noticing the mutation made with regard to the suit property in record of rights. Consequently, he sued the defendant for declaration about nullity of the impugned possession receipt dated 5. 8. 1980 and consequently relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from transferring his title to the suit land in any manner after service of statutory notice. The Defendant-State contested the suit, inter alia, denying the allegations made by the plaintiff. It was submitted that the deceased Anand had committed breach of the conditions of the agreement under which the land Class II Inam was given to him, and therefore, proceeding regarding eviction from the suit land was necessitated. According to the State, it had followed the due process of law for seeking possession of the suit land, which was vested in the state since 5. 8. 1980. It was a case of the Defendant-State that the plaintiff has not acquired title to the suit land under the alleged Will and on such and other grounds the suit was sought to be dismissed.

(3.) The learned trial judge adjudicated the dispute on the basis of available evidence and came to the conclusion that though the Will of deceased Anand was proved, the plaintiff failed to prove that possession receipt dated 5. 8. 1980 was bogus and illegal. It was further held that the plaintiff failed to prove that possession of the property was not taken by the defendant-State and that he had fulfilled the conditions of the order of the Asstt. Collector passed Order lan/sr-132 dated 17. 11. 1965 under which the land was alienated to him. Finally it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs for declaration and consequential injunction and as such the suit came to be dismissed. The Appeal was carried to the District Court. The learned Addl. District Judge after hearing both the parties upheld the findings recorded by the trial court but concluded that the Possession receipt dated 5. 8. 1980 was illegal and ultravires to the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, but held that plaintiff was not entitled for relief of declaration as well as injunction and as such the appeal came to be dismissed. Hence the present appeal.