Suit for declaration & permanent injunction [CD1]
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, PUNE
AT PUNE
Civil
Suit No. ___________________________________________ /200___
Shri ASR __.{Full
Name) __________ )
|
age
-- years, occupation -, |
) Plaintiff |
|
…………………………………
|
) |
|
………………………………….
|
) |
Versus
1.
Shri ABR __(Full Name) ____ )
age -- years,
occupation -___________ )
Defendants
)
2.
The State of Maharashtra )
A SUIT FOR DECLARATION & PERMANENT INJUNCTION
â–
The plaintiff abovenamed submits this plaint, praying to state as
follows :
1. Suit Properties : All
those pieces and parcels of lands situate within the Registration Division
& District Pune, Sub-Division & Taluka Haveli, within the local limits
of the Pune Zilla Parishad, revenue village Rajgurunagar, as detailed below :
(A) Gat No. 195/2,
admeasuring 45 acres or thereabouts, and bounded by :
On or towards the East _ Gat No. 195/7,
On or towards the South _ Gat No. 200,
On or towards the West _ Public Road, and
On or towards the
North Nullah.
(B) Gat No. 196,
admeasuring 55 acres or thereabouts, and bounded by :
On or towards the East _
Gat No. 197, On or towards the South
_ Gat No. 201, On or towards
the West _ Gat No. 202, and On or towards the North _
Public Road. (C) Gat No.
200, admeasuring 47 acres or
thereabouts, and bounded by :
On or towards the East_ Gat
No. 205, On or towards the
South _ Gat No. 211, On or towards the West _
Public Road, and On or towards the North_ Nullah.
2.
That the said lands had been given to the share of
the present plaintiff in partition effected on , and since the, the plaintiff
has been possession and enjoying the said properties as his exclusive
properties, and there is abundant evidence to establish that the present
plaintiff is in actual possession and enjoyment of the said properties since
the said partition, dated .
3.
That, however, it appears on _____ , the defendant
No. 1 filed his return under the
provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act,
hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the "said
act". The Special Deputy
Collector, Khed Division, started an
enquiry into the holdings of the defendant No. 1, case No. MLS/ME/100, and by
his judgment and order, dated __________
, held that the total holding with the defendant No. 1 as on ______________ was 147 acres and 6 gunthas.
4.
That it was also held by the said officer that the
defendant No. 1 was the only member in his family and that he was entitled to
hold 108 acres of land only, and,
therefore, the surplus land with the defendant No. 1 was 34 acres and 6 gunthas of land, and he
proceeded to delimit the same from Survey No. 195/2 and gave further incidental
directions in the aforesaid judgment and order.
However, suo motu proceedings
were started by the Commissioner,
Pune
Division, Pune, being Ceiling Revision Case No. SHO. 100, who, by his
judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, holding that the defendant No.
l's total holding was 180 acres and 26 gunthas, and on conversion, it came to
428 acres and 34 gunthas, and that the defendant No. 1 was entitled to hold 320
acres and 34 gunthas and so the surplus with the defendant No. 1 came to 108
acres, and so holding remanded the matter to the Trial Court for
reconsideration of the trial under Sections 15, 16 and 21 of the said Act.
5.
That against the said judgment and order, the
defendant No. 1 preferred a special
civil application No. 250/200_ to the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai, which
was dismissed. Their Lordships were pleased
to kindly pass the following order :
(i) While calculating the ceiling areas for the holding of each of the
petitioner or of his family unit, no land shall be taken into consideration
more than once, (ii) Save and except for the above, the rest of the order of
the
Commissioner impugned herein stands; (iii) There will be no order as to the
cost's.
6. That it is clear from
this order that their Lordships have not said that
the second partition of the year 200__ is to be completely ignored and
only the partition has been considered is of the year 200..
7. That after remand,
the case was numbered as Ceiling Case No. MLS-
W-63 in the Court of the Special Deputy Collector, Khed, who, by his
judgment order, dated , held that the defendant No. 1 was entitled to hold 113 of land, i.e. on
conversion, the defendant No. 1 was holding 400 acres and 8 gunthas, and the defendant was entitled to hold 108
acres of land and so the surplus came to be 292 acres and 2 gunthas, and he
directed these to be taken from Survey Nos. 195/2, 196 and 200.
8. That it is pertinent
to note and as will be clear from the judgment that the present plaintiff was
not a party to the said proceedings after remand.
9. That against the said judgment and order,
it is true that the defendant No.
1 preferred an appeal No. MRT/SH/CING/17/19 of 200_ in the court of the
Commissioner, Pune Division, who, by its judgment and order, dated , dismissed
the same.
10.
That the present plaintiff has a sound and
substantial case, for he has been in continuous possession of these three lands
since the partition in the year 1980, and the same has already been mutated in
the extracts of the record of rights by mutation entry No. 268, dated
15.6.1980. 11. That the defendant No. 1 had clearly stated that these three
lands were given to the share of the present plaintiff and that the plaintiff
has been continuously and uninterruptedly in possession of the same, and the
defendant No. 1 has then never challenged the said partition during all these
years.
12. That it is clear that
the defendant No. 1 had fraudulently concealed all these facts from the notice
of the authorities as well as from the knowledge of this plaintiff and offered
the said lands as surplus holding in his case, and, as such, the said order of
the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal has been obtained by the defendant No.
1 by fraud, and hence, it is null and void.
13. That the present
plaintiff has been cultivating the said lands every year and taking crops like
sugarcane, cotton, jowar, what, etc., and he is also a producer-member of the
Ganesh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana for
the last 25 years, and
every year, he has been supplying sugarcane to the said
sugar factory, for which has already received bills for the payment of such
supply.
14. That it is also the
contention of this plaintiff that the orders passed in the said proceeding in
the case of the defendant No. 1 have been passed without joining the present
plaintiff as a party, and hence, the defendant No. 2 cannot validly enforce the
same against the present plaintiff.
15. That even it were to
be held that the said partition were invalid, yet the facts stand that the
plaintiff is in actual possession of he said property right from the date of
partition, dated , and, thus, after the continuous possession of the plaintiff
for more than 12 years, the plaintiff in any case obtained a perfect title by
adverse possession, and therefore, in the year 1980, the defendant No. 1 had no
title to the said property to offer the same by way of choice of the surplus
land, and hence, also the decision is bad.
16. That it is also
pertinent to note that the plaintiff all these years has been paying the water
charges and the land revenue in respect of these lands.
17. That the plaintiff,
therefore, prays that -
(a)it be declared that since the defendant No. 1 had obtained the order
from the
Surplus Land Determination
Tribunal by fraud, the same is null and void; (b)in alternative, it be declared
that since the present plaintiff was not a party to the said proceedings, the
order passed in that proceeding cannot be enforced against the present
plaintiff;
(c)in alternative, since the present plaintiff has been in actual
possession of the said lands for more than 12 years and has obtained a perfect
title to the said lands, the defendant No. 1 had no title to the said property
to offer the same by way of his choice, and the said decision is, therefore,
bad and null and void.
(d) the defendants be permanently restrained from executing the said
orders against the present plaintiff in respect of the said lands.
Pune, Sd/-
ASR
PLAINTIFF Dated: _____ .
Sd/- xX x
ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF
VERIFICATION
I, Shri ASR the present
plaintiff, do hereby state on solemn affirmation that the contents of this
plaint in paras 1 to 14 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief, and I have signed hereunder at Pune this
___ day of ___ . 200_
Sd/- ASR
PLAINTIFF
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.