BALIRAM DAGADU MUNDFANE Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR , MAHARASHTRA ...

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, at the stage of admission itself, by consent of Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Thorat, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Mr. Madane, learned A.G.P., for Respondent No.3-State.

(2.) By this Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 28 th November 2017 passed by the Ad-Hoc Additional District Judge-1, Malshiras, thereby allowing the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.26 of 2017 and vacating and setting aside the order of interim injunction granted by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Malshiras, vide its order dated 22nd August 2017 passed below "Exhibit-5" in Regular Civil Suit No.9 of 2017.

(3.) The case of the Petitioner is that, the land admeasuring 23 Acres, out of Gat No.612, totally admeasuring 10 H 52 R, situate at Village Mahalung, Taluka Malshiras, District Solapur, was given in possession of his mother Yashodabai as a 'tenant' by Brihan Maharashtra Syndicate Limited, as the said land was found to be in excess of the holding under the Maharashtra Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act . After the death of his mother, the Petitioner is in cultivation of the said land. It is his further case that, Respondent-Maharashtra State Agricultural Corporation Limited has, by calling the tenders, given the said land in joint-cultivation for a period of five years with M/s. Adhirat Trading Company Private Limited. The said period was further extended by one year. Thereafter, it was decided to extend the said period for further ten years from 19th May 2015 to 31st May 2025. M/s. Adhirat Trading Company was unable to cultivate the suit land single handedly and, therefore, it has given the said land, along with the other lands, to various farmers for cultivation. Thus, the Petitioner is in peaceful cultivation of the suit land. He is also paying the consideration amount regularly to M/s. Adhirat Trading Company; however, all of a sudden, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have started obstructing his possession in the suit land on the count that, the Agreement they had entered into with M/s. Adhirat Trading Company Private Limited has come to an end, being terminated. In view thereof, the Petitioner was constrained to file the Suit for injunction with an application for interim injunction.