UDAY BHANUDAS GUJAR Vs. MADAN YESHWANT DIWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition arises from the order dtd. 1/8/2014 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune. By the said order, a purported appeal was entertained, and the sale permission dtd. 13/12/2010 granted in favour of the petitioner's vendor, respondent No.6, under Sec. 12 of the Maharashtra Rehabilitation Act, 1999 was revoked. This permission had already been acted upon by execution of a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The subject land forms part of Gat No.36, which was originally owned by respondent No.6 as on 8/5/1995. Respondent No.6 had executed an agreement to sell in favour of one Satish Tanksale on that date. Satish Tanksale has, till date, not filed any suit for specific performance. On 15/7/2010, respondent No.6 applied to respondent No.4 under Sec. 12 of the Rehabilitation Act seeking permission to transfer the land to the petitioner. On 13/12/2010, respondent No.4 granted such permission. Pursuant thereto, on 31/3/2011, respondent No.6 executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner and handed over possession. On 25/4/2011, the petitioner's name was entered in the revenue record by mutation entry No.1579. Thereafter, on 19/4/2011, Satish Tanksale executed an agreement in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2, on the basis of which they claim rights allegedly flowing from the agreement to sell dtd. 8/5/1995.

(2.) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 thereafter started interfering with the petitioner's possession over the land. The petitioner, therefore, filed Special Civil Suit No.1736 of 2011 on 30/8/2011 seeking an injunction to restrain respondent Nos.1 and 2 from disturbing his possession. The Trial Court granted the injunction on 10/5/2012. The said order was confirmed by the District Court.

(3.) On 9/11/2011, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed Appeal No.44 of 2011 challenging the sale permission dtd. 13/12/2010 along with an application for condonation of delay. The petitioner filed his reply to the delay condonation application on 6/3/2012. On the same day, the petitioner also raised a specific objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal.