Bombay High Court
GRAMPANCHAYAT DEVLOLI BUDRUK THRU. SARPANCH AND ORSversusDATTATRAY BALKRISHNA DESHMUKH AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the injunction order does not merit interference and dismissed the writ petition, while allowing the petitioners to seek demarcation of the land through a court commissioner.
Summary
The petitioners, a village panchayat, challenged a district court order that imposed an injunction restraining them from dealing with a 12.5‑acre gaonthan land, alleging that the suit property was not adequately described and the injunction was overly broad. The respondents, plaintiffs in the underlying civil suit, argued that the plaint provided sufficient description, including a sketch, and that the injunction was a proper protective measure. The High Court examined whether the lower courts had exercised their discretion correctly in granting limited protection based on the material before them, including the record of rights. It found no justification to set aside the injunction, but clarified that the petitioners may apply to have the land measured and demarcated by a court commissioner. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of, leaving the injunction in place pending any further application for demarcation.
Issues considered
- Whether the injunction restraining the petitioners from dealing with the entire 12.5‑acre gaonthan land is valid given the alleged insufficient description of the suit property.
- Whether the trial court's order amounts to an impermissible blanket injunction prejudicing the petitioners.
- Whether the petitioners may seek measurement and demarcation of the land through a court commissioner as a remedy.
Subjects
- injunction
- land demarcation
- gaonthan land
- civil procedure
- writ petition
- property description
- court commissioner
Judgment
8 WP-16369-25.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 16369 OF 2025
Grampanchayat Devloli Budruk & ors. ..Petitioners
Versus
Dattatray Balkrishna Deshmukh & ors. …Respondents
Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil, a/w Mr. Dushyant B Thakare, for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Rohit Joshi, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 01st September 2026
SAINATH
SANJAY
BODKHE Oral Order :-
Digitally signed
by SAINATH
SANJAY BODKHE
Date: 2026.09.03
10:40:32 +0530
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this petition is to a judgment and order
dated 30th June, 2025 passed by the learned District Judge,
Panvel in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.28/2023 whereby the
appeal preferred by the petitioners – original Defendant Nos.1 to
3 against an order passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil
Suit No.451/2021 thereby restraining the appellants and the co-
defendants from causing disturbance to the possession of the
plaintiffs over the suit property till the final disposal of the suit,
came to be dismissed by affirming the said order.
SAINATH, PA 1/4
8 WP-16369-25.DOC
3. Mr. Gaware Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioners
submitted that, the suit property has not been adequately
described and, resultantly, the order passed by the trial Court
assumed the character of a blanket injunction restraining the
petitioners from dealing with the ‘ gaonthan’ land admeasuring
12.5 acres, though the respondents – plaintiffs have laid claim
over an area of 114 gunthas only.
4. It was further submitted that, the claim of the
respondents – plaintiffs over the said area of land is also
tenuous. The proper remedy for the respondents-plaintiffs was
to first seek demarcation of the property which is purportedly in
their possession from the rest of the ‘ gaonthan’ land, seek a
declaration in relation thereto and then the consequential relief
of injunction. The impugned order, thus, operates to the
prejudice of the village panchayat.
5. Mr. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the respondents –
plaintiffs countered the submissions on behalf of the
petitioners. It was urged that, in Paragraph Nos.3 of the plaint,
the plaintiffs have given sufficient description of the suit
property and even a rough sketch was annexed to the plaint.
6. As the Courts below have exercised the concurrent
discretion to grant limited protection to the respondents-
SAINATH, PA 2/4
8 WP-16369-25.DOC
plaintiffs, upon appraisal of the material, including the entries
in the record of rights, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction,
this Court does not find any justifiable reason to entertain the
petition.
7. So far as the grievance of the petitioners that, the
impugned order of injunction operates qua the entire 12.5 acres
‘gaonthan’ land, it would be appropriate to clarify that the
petitioners – defendants would be at liberty to file an application
before the trial Court to have the suit property and other
‘gaonthan’ land, measured and demarcated by the Cadastral
Surveyor.
8. Mr. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the respondents
submitted that, the respondents – plaintiffs are not averse to a
Court Commissioner being appointed to measure and
demarcate the land. Once the Court Commissioner carries out
the survey and submits the report to the Court, the petitioners
– defendants would be at liberty to avail appropriate remedies as
available in law.
9. Thus, with a clarification that, in the event the petitioners
– defendants file an application to appoint a Court
Commissioner to measure and demarcate the land, the learned
Civil Judge may pass an appropriate order, as expeditiously as
SAINATH, PA 3/4
8 WP-16369-25.DOC
possible, and, upon the report of the Court Commissioner being
filed, the petitioners will have the liberty to work out their
remedies as available in law, the Writ Petition stands disposed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
SAINATH, PA 4/4
Checking your session…