SHRI NAMDEV SADASHIV ADSUL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants (original plaintiffs) have impugned the judgment and decree dated 2nd April 2011 passed by the Principal District Judge, Satara, dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No.165 of 2005 filed by the appellants. The appellants had impugned the judgment and decree dated 29th April 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara, dismissing Regular Civil Suit No.171 of 1992 filed by the appellants inter-alia praying for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit properties bearing survey no.222 (old), 234 (new), admeasuring 2-H 27-R situated at Wai and the property bearing survey No.254/2-B (old), and the property bearing survey 8/2-B (new), admeasuring 1-H, 44-R situated at Shelarwadi. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this second appeal are as under :-

(2.) The parties in this judgment are described as per their original status in the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were the owners of the suit properties and were claiming to be in possession and cultivating the suit lands for a long period. It was the case of the plaintiffs that on the date of filing the suit, the plaintiff nos.1 to 3 and 6 were in actual possession of the suit lands.

(3.) Some time in the year 1985, the Sub Divisional Officer, Wai issued a notice under section 32(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (for short the said "MID Act") to the plaintiff nos.1 to 3 and their mother Rahibai in respect of the suit land no.1-B and in respect of the land 1-A. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the said Rahibai had replied to the said notice on 22nd April 1989 by addressing a letter to the Sub Divisional Officer, Mahabaleshwar Division, Wai, requesting not to initiate any proceedings of the alleged acquisition in respect of the suit properties behind the back of the plaintiffs and herself and also prayed for personal hearing and sought permission to lead evidence. It is the case of the plaintiffs that though the said notice was duly received by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mahabaleshwar Division, Wai, he did not give any reply to the said notice and also did not give any opportunity to the plaintiffs or the said Rahibai of hearing or for adducing any evidence.