MOTIRAM BAJIRAO PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/original plaintiff impugns the judgment and decree dtd. 31/7/1995 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalgaon, in Regular Civil Appeal no.289 of 1989 thereby upholding the judgment and decree dtd. 30/9/1989 passed by the learned Civil Judge S.D., Jalgaon, in R.C.S.No.619 of 1985 thereby dismissing suit of the plaintiff seeking the relief of declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction claimed against defendant no.1/State of Maharashtra. (Parties hereinafter are referred to as per their original status).

(2.) Appellant/plaintiff instituted suit claiming the relief of declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit plot which is part and parcel of gat no.147 of village Asankhede, more particularly, described in the plaint. According to plaintiff, suit plot was possessed by his forefathers since 150 to 200 years. Plaintiff continued in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as owner. Plaintiff has installed a flour-mill and constructed cattle-shed as well as water pond. Defendant no.2 village Panchayat mutated name of plaintiff's father in Panchatyat record under Resolution No.46 dtd. 22/12/1964. Since then, defendant no.2 is receiving tax. Plaintiff asserts that he has no documentary evidence to show his ownership, but his long standing and continuous possession would rest title upon him by prescription. Hence, in the alternate, he claims ownership by way of adverse possession. According to plaintiff, on false complaint made by a villager, S.D.O. Chalisgaon made an inquiry. Eventually, Tahsildar, Pachora ordered plaintiff to vacate the suit plot. Hence, plaintiff required to approach Court seeking relief, as claimed.

(3.) Defendant no.1 refuted plaintiff's claim, either as to his own title or acquisition of same by adverse possession. It is pleaded that suit plot is meant for public use. Plaintiff encroached on area of suit plot causing nuisance to public. The Government requires land for implementation of various schemes. Resolution of the village Panchayat is inconsistent to Sec. 53 and 56 of the village Panchayat Act.