VISHWANATH PANDHARINATH GURME THROUGH GPA TUKARAM PANDHARINATH GURMEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:45840-DB
                                           1            Cri. W. P. No. 1045-2023 order.odt



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    922 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1045 OF 2023

                 VISHWANATH PANDHARINATH GURME THROUGH GPA
                           TUKARAM PANDHARINATH GURME
                                          VERSUS
                      THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                             ...
            Adv. Reddy Ajinkya, Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, APP for Respondents
                                             ...

                                 CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                         VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
                                 DATE     : 29/09/2026


            Order (PER : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) :-


            .      Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the

            admission stage.



            2.     The present petition is filed by the petitioners mainly for

            declaring the action of the respondents of taking forcible possession

            of Plot No. 94 situated at Village Chimachi Wadi, Tq. Udgir, Dist.

            Latur, by misusing the order of police protection dated 17.02.2023,

            as ultra vires and unlawful. They have also prayed for appropriate

            compensation from respondent Nos. 1 to 5 for their alleged illegal

            act.
                               2            Cri. W. P. No. 1045-2023 order.odt



3.   The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioner No.1 is owner and possessor of Grampanchayat Plot No.

94 admeasuring 150 x 100 sq. ft. in village Chimachi Wadi.

Thereafter, in the year 2004, one Bhagirathibai Keshav Gurme filed

Civil Suit No. 437 of 2004 for declaration of ownership and also for

perpetual injunction in respect of Grampanchayat Plot No. 81. A

decree was passed in favor of the Bhagirathibai which is now the

subject matter of Second Appeal (St.) No. 31832 of 2014, pending

before this Court. However, Bhagirathibai and her son-in-law

Nagnath Pundlikrao Bande, under the garb of the judgment and

decree in the aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No. 437 of 2004,

encroached upon Plot No. 94 and dispossessed the petitioner No.1

by misusing the police protection order dated 17.02.2023 granted to

Nagnath Pundlikrao Bande. According to him, Nagnath Pundlikrao

Bande, by taking disadvantage of the said police protection, forcibly

dispossessed the petitioners from Plot No.94 and therefore, the

police had acted contrary to the Government Resolution dated

04.01.2018.



4.   On the contrary, the learned APP by filing an affidavit of the

Assistant Police Inspector of Wadhwana Police Station, strongly

resisted the contention of the petitioners and contended that no
                                3                Cri. W. P. No. 1045-2023 order.odt



such misuse of police protection granted to Nagnath, was done but,

in fact, Bhagirathibai was having a decree in her favor and in

execution of the said decree, she was granted police protection in

respect of getting possession of Plot No. 81. The petitioner had in

fact, tried to interfere with the possession of said Plot No. 81 and

for that purpose a crime was also registered. So far as Plot No. 94 is

concerned, the petitioners could not establish any right over Plot

No. 94 and it was in fact, not owned by petitioner No.1. One,

Tukaram Pundlikrao Gurme filed complaint dated 02.12.2020, for

getting Form No. 8 in respect of Plot No. 94 in the name of

petitioner No. 1, but the said request was turned down after due

inquiry. Accordingly, the learned APP submits that when the

petitioner No.1 could not establish his right over the said Plot No.

94, there cannot be any direction given for granting any

compensation for his alleged dispossession of the said Plot No. 94.



5.    It is to be noted that the petitioners are seeking the aforesaid

reliefs on the basis of the entry of petitioner No.1 in the revision

register   of   Grampanchayat       Plot   No.   94   of     Chimachi          Wadi

Grampanchayat for the year 1991-92. However, a detailed inquiry

was done in this respect by recording the statements of concerned

persons, including the petitioner No.1 on 24.03.2022 and in the
                                 4          Cri. W. P. No. 1045-2023 order.odt



said inquiry, it was revealed that the name of petitioner No.1 was

entered in the revision register of Plot No. 94 without any right due

opportunity was also given to the petitioner No.1 in the said

inquiry. It appears from the said inquiry, which is at Exh. R-3 along

with the affidavit in reply, that there was no record available in the

Grampanchayat about the said Plot No. 94. Moreover, it was also

revealed that, without any record, the name of petitioner No.1 was

recorded in the revision register in respect of the said Plot No. 94.

There were no boundaries mentioned in the revision register in

respect of the said Plot. Under such circumstances, it was observed

that petitioner No.2 could not establish his rights over the said Plot

No. 94 and hence, the complaint of one Tukaram Gurme on behalf

of the petitioner No.1 was filed. Thus, it appears that the existence

of Plot No. 94 itself is doubtful.



6.    Further, the concerned Police Officer i.e. Assistant Police

Inspector had also prayed for closing the complaint of Tukaram by

submitting report dated 03.06.2023 to the Sub Divisional Police

Officer, Ahmedpur by observing that the police protection was also

given to the mother-in-law of Nagnath and for protection of Plot No.

81, one offence was also registered against Tukaram for committing

theft of the fencing of the said Plot. Thus, on going through the
                               5            Cri. W. P. No. 1045-2023 order.odt



entire record, it appears that the petitioners could not establish

their ownership over the said Plot No. 94 and the very existence of

Plot No. 94 is doubtful, as the entry of name of petitioner No. 1 was

taken in revision register of the said Plot without having any record

of the same. Therefore, we are of the opinion that, there is no

substance in the petition and hence, the Criminal Writ Petition

stands dismissed. Rule is accordingly discharged.




(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.)
shivani/