Bombay High Court
HINDUSTHAN PETROLIAM CORPORATION LTD and OTHERS.versusFAKRUDDIN HAIDARALI AMBAWALA DIED LRS. MUSTAFA AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The appeal is infructuous and is therefore disposed of, with the decree regarding possession rendered ineffective but the respondent's right to compensation and mesne profit preserved.
Summary
The respondent filed a suit to recover possession of a leased plot of land, which was dismissed, leading to an appeal that was allowed. During the pendency of the appeal, the Central Government acquired the property and handed it over to the appellants by constructive possession. The trial court and the first appellate court awarded compensation and future mesne profit, directing the appellants to pay Rs.5,000 per month, and the State Level Arbitration Office issued a final award. The second appeal before this Court raised the question of whether the decree remained enforceable after the acquisition and change in possession. The Court held that the appeal was infructuous, rendering the earlier decree ineffective with respect to possession, but affirmed the respondent's right to claim compensation and mesne profit in execution proceedings, and consequently disposed of the appeal and all pending applications.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of the Central Government's acquisition and constructive possession on the decree for possession?
- Does the respondent retain a right to compensation and mesne profit despite the change in possession?
- Is the second appeal infructuous in view of the altered factual circumstances?
Subjects
- possession
- lease
- mesne profit
- compensation
- second appeal
- infructuous
- government acquisition
- constructive possession
- execution proceedings
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:39746
sa134.92
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
5 SECOND APPEAL NO. 134 OF 1992
Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation and others.
VERSUS
Fakruddin Haidarali Ambawala.
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mrs. C.S. Deshmukh
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Adv. S.P. Sonpawale
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2030 OF 2006
IN SA/134/1992
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2649 OF 2005
IN SA/134/1992
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11671 OF 2003
IN SA/134/1992
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2936 OF 1993
IN SA/134/1992
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3530 OF 2022
IN SA/134/1992
…..
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 31st AUGUST, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree
dated 02.11.1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Aurangabad, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 244 of 1989. The said
Regular Civil Appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree
dated 19.08.1989 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior
sa134.92
-2-
Division, Aurangabad in Regular Civil Suit No. 587 of 1983.
2. The admitted facts in this case are that the respondent had
filed suit for recovery of possession of the land being a part plot No.
old 1919 and new 5-5-88, having CTS No.14453, which was given on
lease to the appellants. The suit was dismissed. The appeal was
allowed against which this second appeal is preferred.
3. The compensation as well as the future mesne profit were
also awarded. During pendency of this appeal, the suit property was
acquired by the Central Government and it is handed over by
constructive possession to the appellants.
4. This court, by order dated 15.12.1992, while deciding the
application for granting stay, directed the appellants to pay an
amount of Rs.5000/- per month towards compensation and future
mesne profit. The S.L.A.O. has passed the final award and the
compensation is determined and some amount out of that as per the
final award of S.L.A.O. is received.
5. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the view that this
appeal becomes infructuous and even the decree passed by the first
appellate court also become infructuous to the extent of handing over
sa134.92
-3-
of the possession as decreed by the trial court. However, the
respondent-original plaintiff has every right to recover the amount as
per the impugned judgment and decree in the execution proceedings.
It is submitted that the plaintiff has right to file the suit for
compensation as he was deprived from the fruits of the said disputed
property.
6. Considering all these aspects the appeal becomes
infructuous and therefore, it is disposed of.
7. It is clarified that till the date of taking constructive
possession of the property, the plaintiff is entitled for the mesne profit.
For that purpose, the final award passed by the S.L.A.O. or other
documents are relevant which can be considered by the executing
court while determining the amount.
8. All pending civil applications are also disposed of.
(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)
rlj/
Checking your session…