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
44 years, occupation - agriculture, |
|
) Plaintiff |
|
resident
of Rajgurunagar, |
|
)
|
|
Taluka
Khed, District Pune. Versus
|
|
)
|
|
1. Shri
ABR __(Full Name) ____ |
)
|
|
|
age
69 years, occupation - agriculture, |
) Defendants |
|
)
2.
The State of Maharashtra )
A SUIT FOR DECLARATION &PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
■
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, KhedDivision, 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 108acres 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
producermember of the Ganesh SahakariSakharKarkhana 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.