Bombay High Court
SAMPAT KISAN MOTEversusVITTHAL AMARSINH PARKALE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
A plaintiff cannot claim settled possession of alluvial land exceeding one acre without a statutory allotment under Sections 32 and 33 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, rendering the trial court's finding erroneous.
Summary
The appellant, Sampat Kisan Mote, appealed under Section 100 of the CPC against a judgment that had set aside a trial court decree granting him injunction over an alluvial land parcel. The dispute concerned an alluvial land of 1 acre 10 gunthas adjoining the appellant's and defendants' properties. The trial court had found the appellant in settled possession and granted an injunction, but the first appellate court reversed this, citing Sections 32 and 33 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, which allow temporary use only for alluvial land up to one acre and require a Collector's allotment for larger areas. The High Court affirmed that the appellant had no right to settled possession or to seek injunction for land exceeding one acre without allotment, deeming the trial court's finding erroneous. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed and the interim injunction application was also disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a plaintiff can claim settled possession of alluvial land exceeding one acre without a statutory allotment under Sections 32 and 33 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
- Whether the trial court erred in granting an injunction based on alleged settled possession of such alluvial land.
- Whether the reversal by the first appellate court is legally correct.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 100
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 — s. 32, 33
Subjects
- alluvial land
- settled possession
- injunction
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- Section 32
- Section 33
- CPC Section 100
- temporary use
- land allotment
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:41030
k 1/4 7 sa 797.22 w ia as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.797 OF 2022
Sampat Kisan Mote ....Appellant
V/S
Vitthal Amarsinh Parkale & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.20475 OF 2022
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.797 OF 2022
Sampat Kisan Mote ....Appellant
V/S
Vitthal Amarsinh Parkale & Ors. ....Respondents
_________
Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni with Mr. Gaurav Shahane, Mr. Abhishek Roy and
Mr. Shreyas Zarkar for the Appellant/Applicant.
Mr. Bhushan Walimbe with Mr. Mayank Tripathi for Respondents.
__________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 07 OCTOBER 2026.
P.C.:
1. This Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (the Code), challenging the judgment and decree dated 27
February 2020 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-2, Baramati, allowing
Regular Civil Appeal No.119 of 2014 filed by the Defendants and setting
aside the judgment and decree dated 19 September 2014 passed by the
6th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Baramati in Regular Civil Suit
No.517 of 2012. By its decree dated 19 September 2014, the Trial Court
katkam Page No. 1 of 4
k 2/4 7 sa 797.22 w ia as.doc
had decreed Plaintiff’s suit and had injuncted Defendants from
disturbing Plaintiff’s possession in respect of the suit property.
2. I have heard Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant/Plaintiff and Mr. Walimbe, the learned counsel appearing for
the Respondents/Defendants.
3. The dispute in the suit is qua alluvial land formed abutting the
properties of the Plaintiff (Gat No. 164) and Defendants (Gat No. 160/1).
According to Plaintiff himself, the alluvial land admeasures 1 acre and 10
gunthas. The Plaintiff claimed that he possessed the entire alluvial land
admeasuring 1 acre 10 gunthas. Complaining that Defendant No.1
attempted to disturb his possession of the alluvial land, Plaintiff filed
Regular Civil Suit No. 517 of 2012. The Trial Court decreed the Suit of the
Plaintiff, recording a finding that Plaintiff proved possession of the suit
property and that he was entitled to secure injunction against settled
posession and that he was entitled to secure injunction. The First
Appellate Court has reversed the finding of the Trial Court by referring
to provisions of Section 33 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966
(MLRC). The First Appellate Court has accordingly allowed the appeal
and dismissed the Plaintiff’s suit.
4. In my view, the frame of the suit by the Plaintiff itself was baseless
and contrary to the scheme of provisions of Section 32 and 33 of the
MLRC. The statutory scheme of Sections 32 and 33 of the MLRC is such
that when alluvial land forms on the bank or shore, the occupant of such
katkam Page No. 2 of 4
k 3/4 7 sa 797.22 w ia as.doc
bank/shore is entitled to temporarily use thereof so long as the area of
the alluvial land does not exceed one acre. If the area of the alluvial land
exceeds one acre, use of the alluvial land can be made only by seeking
allotment by the Collector under Section 32 of the MLRC. Thus, alluvial
land admeasuring less than one acre can be put to temporary use by the
adjoining occupant. However, the moment the total area of alluvial land
exceeds one acre, temporary use thereof is not permissible and the same
can be put to an use only after securing allotment from the Collector
under Section 32 of the MLRC.
5. In the present case, Plaintiff admits in paragraph 1 of the plaint
that the area of the alluvial land is 1 acre 10 gunthas. Since the total area
of the alluvial land exceeded one acre, the Plaintiff did not have a right
even to put the land for temporary use. He ought to have secured
allotment in respect of the alluvial land from the Collector. Mere filing of
an application to the Collector for allotment of alluvial land is not
sufficient and use of the alluvial land can commence only after the
allotment is made by the Collector.
6. Also of relevance is the fact that the length or width of the main
land abutting alluvial land is of no significance. In the present case, the
alluvial land abuts the properties of the Plaintiff as well as the
Defendants. What matters is the total area of alluvial land irrespective of
the length of its bank/shore. In that sense, neither the Plaintiff nor the
Defendants can claim use of the alluvial land. In these circumstances,
Plaintiff could not have filed a suit to injunct Defendants disturbing his
katkam Page No. 3 of 4
k 4/4 7 sa 797.22 w ia as.doc
alleged possession of the alluvial land. Since the area of the alluvial land
exceeds one acre, the Plaintiff can never be in settled possession thereof.
The Trial Court had egregiously erred in recording a finding of settled
possession of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit property. The First
Appellate Court has correctly reversed the finding of the Trial Court
regarding settled possession and has rightly held that the Plaintiff has
no right to use the alluvial land formed adjacent to his land. The First
Appellate Court has rightly allowed the Appeal filed by the Defendants.
No substantial question of law is involved in the Appeal. Second Appeal
is accordingly rejected.
7. At this stage, Mr. Kulkarni submits that Plaintiff has submitted an
application to the Collector for allotment of the alluvial land.
Mr. Walimbe claims that even Defendants have applied for such
allotment. If that is the case, nothing recorded in the order shall come in
the way of either of the parties in seeking allotment of the alluvial land.
8. In view of the disposal of the Second Appeal, nothing would
survive in the Interim Application for injunction and the same is
accordingly disposed of.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
katkam
Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Page No. 4 of 4
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/10/2026 14:51:51
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.