RAMRAO ANANDRAO PATIL AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:27259



                                                (1)                 979 ca 8840.22

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             979 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8840 OF 2022
                                         IN FA/3677/2008

                               RAMRAO ANANDRAO PATIL AND ORS
                                            VERSUS
                              THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

                                               AND
                             980 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3020 OF 2026
                                         in FA/4050/2008

                     LACHAGAUD VITHAGAUD THR LRS PADMINIBAI AND ORS
                                         VERSUS
                THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH DIST COLLECTOR NANDED

                                                  …..
                  Advocate for Applicant : Mr. S.V. Kurundkar & Mr. A.S. Deshmukh
                            AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. R.B Dhaware
                             Advocate for Resp. No.3 : Mr. Anand Chawre
                                                  …..

                                          CORAM :     SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                                          DATE :      18.06.2026

           Per Court :-

           1.             Heard the learned advocates for the applicants and the

           respondents. It is pointed out by the learned advocate for the applicants that

           by an order dated 17.02.2026, this Court allowed the application partly with

           direction to the learned Reference Court to record the evidence of the

           claimants with respondent to disprove the same. This Court lastly observed

           that the application is allowed and disposed of and also directed to keep said
                                       (2)                   979 ca 8840.22

application with the appeal till the decision of this appeal for final hearing.


2.           The learned advocate for the respondent no.3 in First Appeal

No.3677 of 2008 was heard at that time. Meanwhile, another First Appeal

No.166/2010 was decided on merit by this Court and this Court has

determined the compensation @ Rs. 2723/- per R. During the arguments the

learned advocates Mr. Kurundkar and Mr. Kakde for the appellants pointed out

the evidence recorded by the trial Court in which evidence of witnesses was

recorded in respect of sale exemplar dated 07.05.1997 which was executed

for the 10 R land for consideration of Rs.37,500/-.          The purchaser was

adjacent land owner. They submitted that the sale exemplar relied upon by

this Court is not prohibited as per the provisions of the Prevention of

Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.


3.           During the argument, the learned advocates for the respondents

Mr. Kulkarni and Mr. Anand Chaware strongly opposed to rely upon the said

sale exemplar stating that as per the notification of the State Government

dated 08.08.2023, if the area of land exceeds 20 R for the Nanded district

then such sale-deed is illegal and not sustainable which cannot be relied upon

by this Court while deciding this appeal which was relied upon by this Court

in First Appeal No.166 of 2010 for which the appellants are claiming parity.

They submitted that said sale-deed cannot be relied upon at this stage. Upon
                                    (3)                  979 ca 8840.22

considering the evidence as per Section 7 of the Maharashtra Prevention of

Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 the adjacent owner

has right to purchase the said property and said provision authorizes the

contiguous owner to purchase the land even though it is              fragment.

Considering this aspect, the arguments advanced on the part of acquiring

body is not acceptable in this regard. Now it is necessary to establish that

purchaser was the contagious owner of the purchased property. As per the

7/12 extract, survey no.37/A of village Bhendegaon (Kh.), Tq. Mukhed, Dist.

Nanded total area of 1 H 62 R. The purchaser is the owner of 40 R land. He

purchased 10 R land out of that same survey number. For the purposes of

Section 7 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation

of Holdings Act, 1947 the purchaser is certainly the contagious owner and

therefore the objection raised by the learned advocate for the respondents is

not acceptable in this regard.


4.          As far as contagious owner is concerned, the learned advocate Mr.

Kulkarni for the respondents submitted that merely because the purchaser has

purchased the land in one and the same block number he cannot be

contagious owner.    On this point, the learned advocate for the appellants

submitted that 10 R land is purchased by the purchaser from one and same

land and he has deposed in chief examination to corroborate the said fact and
                                       (4)                  979 ca 8840.22

said evidence is not disputed during his cross-examination.


5.             The learned advocate for the respondent/acquiring body pointed

out the boundaries of 10 R land which shows the land owners as towards the

eastern side-Sanjay Digambar, towards western side- Tulsiram Sambhaji,

towards southern side- Shivaji Ramorao and Balaji Ramrao and towards

northern side- Ramakant Maroti. He submits that the purchaser’s name

appears along with one of the boundaries; therefore, he is not a contiguous

owner. But when the land block no.37/A is owned by the purchaser to the

extent of 40 R land, it cannot be held that he is not contagious owner for

purchasing 10 R land as prohibited under the said Act. Said 7/12 extract

available on internet is taken on record and marked as ‘X-1’ for identification.


6.             For the reasons stated above, the Civil Applications for adducing

additional evidence deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the Civil Applications

are allowed.



                                                  [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.]




mubashir