VILAS BALIRAM KOLIversusKADU LAHANU KOLI SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS BHAULAL KADU KOLI AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:40490


                                                     1
                                                                       wp-12611-2023

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                                                    District: Jalgaon

                                 WRIT PETITION NO.12611 OF 2023

                           Vilas S/o. Baliram Koli,
                           Age: 65 years, Occu. Agril,
                           R/o. Gut No.80/1, Plot No.25,
                           Behind Asha Baba Nagar, Shiv Colony,
                           Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.
                                                                  …..PETITIONER
                                                                (Orig. Respondent)
                                 VERSUS

                           Kadu S/o. Lahanu Koli,
                           Since deceased through Heirs,
                           and Legal Representatives.

                     1.    Bhaulal S/o. Kadu Koli,
                           Age: 62, Occu: Agril.

                     2.    Bhika S/o. Kadu Koli,
                           Age: 40, Occu: Labour,

                           Both R/o. Dhamangaon,
                           Tq.& District Jalgaon.

                     3.    Shobha Ravindra Koli,
                           Age: 57, Occ: Household,
                           R/o. Sunasgaon, Tq. Bhusawal,
                           District: Jalgaon.

                     4.    Bharati Gorakh Solankhe,
                           Age: 52 years, Occu: Household,
                           R/o. Lolnhavi, Tq. Yawal,
                           District: Jalgaon.
                                                                …..RESPONDENTS
                                                         (Orig appellants/plaintiffs)
                               2
                                                  wp-12611-2023

______________________________________________________
Mr. L. V. Sangit, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. P. N. Kutti, Advocate for respondent nos.1, 3 and 4
______________________________________________________

                 CORAM                 : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                 RESERVED ON           : 02ND SEPTEMBER, 2026
                 PRONOUNCED ON         : 04TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

JUDGMENT :- (Per Court)

1.     Introduction:

       The Writ Petition contains an objection by a judgment

debtor against the execution petition questioning the

jurisdiction of Civil Court to pass the Decree itself. Although

not a single objection to the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was

raised at any point before the Trial Court till the High Court,

at the fag end of the execution proceedings, an application u/s

47 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 is filed to question the

Decree itself. There is no dispute that the decree can be

challenged in the execution proceeding in the peculiar

circumstances like decree against dead person, inherent lack

of jurisdiction, nullity etc. However, Petitioner relies upon

jurisdiction of the District Collector to decide the controversy

in the suit.
                                 3
                                                  wp-12611-2023

2.    To substantiate the objection, the Petitioner relies upon

Section 3 and 9 of the Maharashtra Inferior Village Watans

Abolition Act 1959 (‘the Act of 1959’ for brevity); and

contends that jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the

suit itself was barred. That the consequential execution also

can not be concluded on account of exclusion of the

jurisdiction.

3.    Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Considering the

controversy and the long standing litigation i.e. since 2001, I

deem it appropriate to hear the respective parties for final

disposal of the Writ Petition.

4.    Brief facts : Since the core issues is recorded as above, I

recite the facts in short as follows:

4.1   Plaintiff i.e. deceased Kadu Koli acquired title to the

'suit property' under re-grant being Koli Inamdar on paying

the occupancy price.

4.2   The 'suit property' was a Koli Inam land. On enactment

of the Act of 1959, plaintiff’s right as Inamdar were cancelled,

the land was restored to the Government, and was lastly re-

granted to Kadu Koli on payment of the occupancy price.
                                4
                                                    wp-12611-2023

4.3   That taking undue advantage of ill habits of the

plaintiff, the defendant i.e. present petitioner inducted himself

in the 'suit property'. Hence the suit was filed for declaration

of title and possession (Regular Civil Suit No.534 of 2001).

4.4   The suit was defended on a numerous counts, except

any objection to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

4.5   The suit was decreed. An appeal filed against the

Judgment and Decree was turned down. Challenge to the

Judgment and Order passed by the Appellate Court could not

survive in the High Court. As such the decree attained finality.

4.6   The decree holder set the execution proceedings in

motion. Sons of the judgment debtor sought intervention in

the execution proceedings and challenged its maintainability

on account of jurisdiction. The said challenge was rejected.

4.7   The intervenors challenged rejection of their objection

before the District Court in an appeal, which came to be

turned down.

4.8   Second appeal filed by Judgment Debtor’s sons also

came to be dismissed by this Court.
                                5
                                                  wp-12611-2023

4.9   In the light of above, the judgment debtor/present

Petitioner lodged his application u/s 47 of the Civil Procedure

Code 1908 before the executing court. Contending that as per

section 3 (1) of the Act of 1959 r/w its section 9, the Civil

Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. As such, the

execution proceeding too, could not be maintainable.

4.10 Legal representatives of the deceased Plaintiff, who

stepped into the proceedings as decree holders opposed the

application.

4.11 Upon hearing the parties, the Executing Court pleased

to dismiss the objection vide impugned order dated

17.11.2022. Hence this Writ Petition.



5.    Submissions:

5.1   Mr. L. V. Sangit, learned advocate for the Petitioner

submits that if the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the

suit, the execution is also not permissible.

5.2   That, Section 3 (1) and 9 of the Act of 1959 abundantly

forbid jurisdiction of the Civil Court. And hence, the execution

must be struck down.
                                 6
                                                 wp-12611-2023

5.3   He would submit that in terms of Section 47 of the Civil

Procedure Code 1908, a challenge to the decree is also

maintainable   in   the   execution   proceedings.   That,   the

Executing Court erringly held that it can not look behind the

decree.

      With this, Mr. Sangeet prays to allow the Writ Petition.

5.4   Mr. P. N. Kutti, learned advocate for the decree holders

would stand by the findings rendered by the Executing Court.

He would submit that at no point of time the Petitioner raised

any objection to the Civil Court’s jurisdiction until the

execution reached to his doorsteps.

5.5   That, the same objection has already been discarded by

this Court while dismissing the Second Appeal filed by

Petitioner’s sons. Hence, the Petitioner can not take the same

objection for reconsideration.

      With this, Mr. P. N. Kutti prays to dismiss the Writ

Petition.


6.    Consideration and discussion:

6.1   As quoted above, now the only issue for consideration

is, ‘whether if the execution petition is maintainable in the

light of Section 3 (1) and 9 of the Act of 1959’. This issue
                                 7
                                                   wp-12611-2023

needs to be read conjointly with Section 9 of the Civil

Procedure Code 1908, which reads thus:

                                PART I
       9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred.—The
       Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein
       contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil
       nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is
       either expressly or impliedly barred.

       [Explanation I].—A suit in which the right to property
       or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature,
       notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely
       on the decision of questions as to religious rites or
       ceremonies.
       [Explanation II].—For the purposes of this section, it is
       immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the
       office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not
       such office is attached to a particular place.]


6.2    As such, excluding the suits of which cognizance is

either expressly or impliedly barred, Civil Courts have

jurisdiction to try all suits.

6.3    In view of above, it would be required to see what rider

is created in the Act of 1959 as regards to jurisdiction.

6.4    For the sake of convenience, Section 3 and 9 of the Act

of 1959 are reproduced for ready reference:
                              8
                                                 wp-12611-2023

   Section 3:-
      3. Powers of Collector to decide certain
      questions and appeal. –(1) If any question
      arises,—
      (a) whether any land is watan land,
      (b) whether any person is a watandar,
      (c) whether any person is an unauthorised
      holder,
      the Collector shall, after giving the party
      affected an opportunity to be heard and after
      holding an inquiry, decide the question.
      (2) Any person aggrieved by such decision may
      file an appeal to the State Government within
      ninety days of such decision.
      (3) The decision of the Collector, subject to an
      appeal under sub-section (2) and the decision of
      the State Government in appeal under sub-
      section (2), shall be final.

Section 9:-
       Eviction of unauthorised holder and regrant of
      watan land to him in certain circumstances and
      disposal of land not regranted. –
      (1) Where any watan land resumed under
      section 4 is in the possession of an unauthorized
      holder, such unauthorised holder shall be
      summarily evicted therefrom by the Collector in
      accordance with the provisions of the Code :
      Provided that where in the case of any
      unauthorised holder, the State Government is of
      opinion that in view of the investment made by
      such holder in the development of the land or in
      the non-agricultural use of the land or otherwise,
      the eviction of such holder from the land will
      involve undue hardship to him, it may direct the
      Collector to regrant the land to such holder on
      payment of such amount and subject to such
      terms and conditions as the State Government
      may determine and the Collector shall regrant
      the land to such holder accordingly.
                                9
                                                  wp-12611-2023

      (2) Watan land which is not regranted under
      sub-section (1) shall be disposed of in
      accordance with the provisions of the Code and
      the rules made thereunder applicable to the
      disposal of unoccupied unalienated land.

6.5   Going litera legis the provision, it is clear that only in

three contingencies, a proceeding can be taken up by and

before the District Collector. The contingencies are mentioned

at Clauses (a),(b) and (c) of Section 3 (1) of the Act of 1959.

6.6   Let us now test Petitioner’s case on the three parameters

on which his objection rests in terms of Section 3 (1) of the

Act of 1959.

6.7   In view of the pleadings of the parties, it is not in

dispute that the 'suit property' is a Watan Land. Hence clause

(a) of Section 3 (1) is not attracted;

6.8   There is also not a dispute as to the status of the

deceased Kadu Koli as a Watandar. Hence, clause (b) of the

Section 3 (1) can not be made applicable to the case;

6.9   The decree of possession is passed by the Trial Court

which is brought into execution. Clause 2 (x) of the Act of

1959 defines ‘unauthorised holder’ as follows:
                               10
                                                   wp-12611-2023

             (x) "unauthorised holder" means a person
             in possession of a watan land without any
             right or under a lease, mortgage, sale, gift
             or any other kind of alienation thereof
             which is null and void under the existing
             watan law ;

      It is an evident fact that the Watan of the 'suit property'

was already abolished, and the land was re-granted to the

deceased Kadu Koli on payment of the occupancy price. The

'suit property' no more remained Watan land. In view of this,

it is abundantly clear that the judgment debtor can not take

shelter of clause (c) of the Section 3 (1), Act of 1959.

6.10 In view of above findings, there is no occasion to invoke

provision u/s 9 of the Act of 1959 which speaks about

‘unauthorized holder’.

6.11 Thus, there is no scenario where interference of the

District Collector u/s 3 of the Act of 1959 was warranted.

6.12 There is one more provision in the Act of 1959 which

entrusts jurisdiction to the District Collector and Tribunal i.e.

u/s 10 and 12 of the Act of 1959, respectively. However, the

provision is regarding compensation to the Watandar. Except

this, there is no other provision in the Act of 1959 whereby

jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly or impliedly barred.
                               11
                                                   wp-12611-2023

At the most it could be said that in so far as situations

enumerated at clauses (a) to (c) of the Section 3 (1) of the Act

of 1959 and Section 10 and 12, Civil Court won’t entertain

such issues. But such is not the case in hand, as observed

descriptively supra.

6.13 The     subject-matter   land   was    re-granted   to   the

Decreeholder on payment of full occupancy price. Section 5 of

the Act of 1959 speaks about regrant of watan land. In terms

of the scheme u/s 5, the subject-matter land no more

remained Watan land.

6.14 In view of this, I find that Petitioner’s objection that the

Decree itself was without jurisdiction is incorrect.

6.15 The suit is of the year 2001. The decree is for

possession. Now the original decree holder is already passed

away during the pendency of these proceedings, and missed to

enjoy the fruits of his litigation despite having succeeded.

Petitioner’s objection to the jurisdiction of Civil Court is

apparently mischievous for the reason that the objection

raised by his sons is already turned down by this Court. The

said order is not challenged by anybody.
                               12
                                                  wp-12611-2023

6.16 The executing Court rightly referred paragraph No.15 of

the order dated 07.03.2022 passed        by this Court in the

Second Appeal No.14 of 2019 wherein this Court has

dismissed the objection giving reference to applicability of

Section 3 (1) of the Act of 1959.

6.17 Apparently, the Petitioner is misinterpreting the order

passed by this Court in the Second Appeal (supra), wherein

reference to legal position is marked. The Petitioner is

conveniently ignoring the later part of the observations.



7.    Conclusion:

7.1   For the reasons recorded in the above discussion part, I

find that (i) Collector’s jurisdiction under the Act of 1959 is

confined only to the situations mentioned in clauses (a) to (c)

of Section 3 (1) of the 1959 Act; (ii) once a land is re-granted

after abolition of Watan and upon payment of full occupancy

price, it no more remains Watan land; (iii) After re-grant of

land u/s 5 of the Act of 1959, an unauthorized occupant in

such re-granted land is not covered by the definition of

‘unauthorised holder’ within the meaning of Section 2 (x) of

the Act of 1959.
                              13
                                                  wp-12611-2023

7.2   There was no jurisdictional error in the original Decree

in Regular Civil Suit No.534 of 2001. There is no express nor

even implied bar under the Act of 1959 so far as the cause

taken up by the plaintiff against the defendants in his Civil

Suit. Execution proceedings were filed in 2015. Despite

service of notice, the Petitioner opted not to appear to respond

the execution petition. Executing Court was constrained to

proceed further observing that the judgment debtor is served.

On the other hand, in 2017 a proxy objection was raised at the

behest of Petitioner’s sons. The said objection and attempt of

intervention was disallowed by the Executing Court, and was

confirmed by this Court. Later, in 2022 an application u/s 47

of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 was filed by the Petitioner

while the execution has reached to the stage of handing over

possession.

7.3   The sequence of facts observed above clearly show that

Petitioner’s objection as to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court

and the Executing Court is not only misconceived, but

apparently it is an abuse of process. The Honorable Supreme

Court in the matter of Emph. Challani Ginning and Pressing

Factory Vs. Kamal reported at 2026 SCC OnLine SC 718 has
                                    14
                                                       wp-12611-2023

recently come down heavily on frivolous attempts in execution

proceedings to halt the execution. The case in hand is no more

different from the case in which the Honorable Supreme Court

has criticized the delaying tactics of the judgment debtors to

avoid the execution of decree.

7.4     For the reasons recorded above, the Writ Petition is

liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Hence I pass

following order.

                                ORDER

         I.      The Writ Petition stands dismissed with
                 cost of Rs.15,000/- to be deposited in the
                 Executing Court by the Petitioner within a
                 period of Four weeks from today;
         II.     If the cost is not deposited within the given
                 time, the consequences to follow.
         III     The executing machinery shall execute the
                 possession warrant within a period of Four
                 weeks from today. The Petitioner shall
                 peacefully handover the possession of suit
                 property to the respondents. No separate
                 notice shall be required to the Petitioner
                 for handing over possession.
         IV.     Rule discharged.



                                         ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
Rushikesh/2026