Bombay High Court
SUGRIV ANANDRAO KALE AND ORS.versusPUSHPA PANDURANG MASAL @ PATIL AND ANR.
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The appellate court quashed the lower courts' orders and remanded the matter for fresh objective scrutiny of the parties' documents.
Summary
The petitioners, original defendants, challenged a district court order that had imposed an injunction on their possession of land allotted as Gat No.120/5 in Katewadi, Solapur. Both parties claimed ownership of overlapping parcels, with the petitioners asserting that the land lay on the northern side of the allotment based on certified copies of allotment orders, possession receipts, and a panchanama, while the respondents relied on a map showing the land on the southern side. The trial court and the lower appellate court had discarded the petitioners' documents and relied on the respondents' map, leading the petitioners to argue a jurisdictional error and improper consideration of evidence. The High Court found that the lower courts failed to objectively scrutinize the documents and therefore erred in their findings of fact. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the writ petition, quashed the earlier orders, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh determination of the land dispute, rejecting the respondents' request for interim protection.
Issues considered
- Whether the lower courts erred in jurisdiction by misapprehending the exact location of the land allotted to the petitioners.
- Whether the documents produced by the petitioners should have been admitted and considered.
- Whether the injunction/order passed by the district court should be set aside.
- Whether interim protection should be granted pending the fresh determination of the land dispute.
Subjects
- land dispute
- injunction
- jurisdiction
- document admissibility
- remand
- interim relief
Judgment
901-11547-2025-WP-Jud=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11547 OF 2025
Digitally
signed by 1. Sugriv Anandrao Kale
UDAY
UDAY SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI JAGTAP
JAGTAP Date:
2026.09.03 2. Prithviraj Sugriv Kale
10:13:09
+0530
3. Dadasaheb Sugriv Kale,
All R/o Katewadi, Tal, Mohol, … Petitioners
Dist. Solapur
Vs.
1. Pushpa Pandurang Masal @ Patil
2. Pawan Pandurang Patil
Both R/o Katewadi, Tal. Mohol,
Dist. Solapur … Respondents
………….
Mr. Vaibhav R. Gaikwad a/w Samrat Hajare, Suraj Bhosale for the
Petitioners
Mr. Prasad P. Kulkarni a/w Nakul V. Shukla, Amol S. Deshinge for the
Respondents.
………….
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
RESERVED ON : 24th AUGUST, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 02nd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
JUDGMENT :-
. Heard both sides.
2. The petitioners who are original defendants are challenging the
Judgment and Order dated 09.05.2025 passed by District Judge 2,
Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 5
901-11547-2025-WP-Jud=.doc
Solapur in Miscellaneous Application No.54 of 2025 confirming the order
dated 05.06.2024 passed below Exhibit – 5 passed in R.C.S.No.158 of
2024, thereby clamping injunction against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the Courts
below committed error of jurisdiction in perceiving the exact location of
land allotted to the petitioners and the land remained with the
respondents from Gat No. 120 situate at Katewadi, Tal. Mohol, Dist.
Solapur. It is submitted that the documents produced by the petitioners
which were discarded, are found to be genuine as the certified copies are
issued, indicating location of Gat No.120/1 on the Southern side of
petitioners’ Gat No. 120/5. It is submitted that petitioners are in
possession of 6 Acre and 2 R which is fortified by Sugarcane bills,
construction of Well and the documents produced along with additional
affidavit. It is submitted that the map relied upon by the trial Court is
suspicious. The appellate Court should have dealt with documents
produced by the petitioners.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
documents and the maps produced by the respondents have not been
cancelled. Those are not challenged. The documents upon which
reliance is placed by the petitioners were not before the Courts below.
Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 5
901-11547-2025-WP-Jud=.doc
There are concurrent finding of facts which cannot be interfered with.
5. Both sides have rival claims for the location of their respective
lands from Gat No.120 situate at Katewadi. Admittedly,original land Gat
No.120 was belonging to forefather of the respondents. It was acquired
by the competent authority to the extent of 5 Hector and 7 R which was
distributed to the various project affected persons including the
petitioners. The petitioners were allotted 2 Hector and 42 R which is
marked as Gat No. 120/5. The balance land remained with the
respondents which is marked as Gat No. 120/1. Its area 1 Hector 99 R
which is in possession of the respondents, is the suit land.
6. The respondents claim that the land allotted to the petitioners is on
the Southern side. The reliance is placed on the map. The petitioners
relied upon the order of allotment dated 20.05.1986, possession receipt
and the panchanama. But those documents were discarded by the trial
Court due to the stamp of disclaimer. The petitioners secured certified
copies of above documents, which do not bear any such stamp. These
documents as well as documents bearing the stamp indicate that Gat
No.120/5 was situated on the Northern side. Gat No. 135 is shown on
the Northern side of the allotted land of the petitioners, which
corresponds to the claim of the petitioners. The documents of the
Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 5
901-11547-2025-WP-Jud=.doc
petitioners should have been taken into account.
7. The petitioners produced the documents before the appellate Court
also. I have gone through the map which was not considered by the
lower appellate Court. Prima facie, there is no reason to doubt its
genuineness. It also depicts that Gat No. 135 is on the Northern side of
allotted land to the petitioners and respondents’ land is on the Southern
side of the petitioners’ land. I find that the trial Court discarded the
documents produced by the petitioners. The lower appellate Court did
not take into account the documents produced by the petitioners. The
objective scrutiny of both the Courts below can be said to be defective.
The concurrent finding of facts are not based upon consideration of the
relevant documents on record.
8. I find that its a fit case to remand the matter to the trial Court to
conduct objective scrutiny afresh. I, therefore, pass following order :-
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed partly.
(ii) The judgment and order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the District
Judge-2, Solapur as well as order dated 05.06.2024 passed below Exh.5
in R.C.S. No. 158 of 2024 are quashed and set aside.
(iii) The matter is relegated to the trial Court to decide Application
below Exh.5 afresh after extending due opportunity of hearing and
Uday S. Jagtap 4 of 5
901-11547-2025-WP-Jud=.doc
considering the documents produced by the parties on the merits of the
matter.
(iv) This exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03)
months.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )
9. After the pronouncement of the order, learned counsel for the
respondents Mr. Kulkarni requests that till the decision of the Application
Exh.5 protection be granted by way of order of status-quo.
10. Learned counsel Mr. Gaikwad would oppose the request. He
submits that any protection during interregnum would create
complications. As both orders passed by Courts below are quashed, there
is no need to grant any relief.
11. I have quashed the order below Exh.5 as well as judgment and
order passed by the lower Appellate Court. The matter has been
relegated to the trial Court to decide Application Exh.5. It would be open
for the parties to request the trial Court for the interim protection
pointing out exigency.
12. The request made by the learned counsel for the respondents
cannot be accepted and the same stands rejected.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )
Uday S. Jagtap 5 of 5
Checking your session…