Bombay High Court

JAGANNATH RAMA VADAR (CHIPARIKAR)versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The petition is dismissed as misconceived; the petitioner must pursue execution proceedings to enforce the consent decree.

Summary

Jagannath Rama Vadar filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Collector to decide a representation dated 8 September 2025, wherein he claimed that a consent decree in a second‑appeal proceeding had settled the partition of a piece of land and that the partition should be effected according to a specific map. The Court observed that the appropriate remedy for enforcing a consent decree is to commence execution proceedings, not a writ petition. It held that the petition was misconceived because it sought a direction that the law does not provide for in this context. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The Court indicated that the petitioner remains free to file execution proceedings to enforce the decree.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate remedy for enforcing a consent decree concerning partition of land?
Is a writ petition seeking a direction to the Collector to decide a representation maintainable in this circumstance?

Subjects

partition
consent decree
execution proceedings
civil procedure
writ petition
jurisdiction

Judgment

2026:BHC-KOL:9153-DB

55-WP-32-2026(C).doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 32 OF 2026
Jagannath Rama Vadar (chiparikar) ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Others ...Respondent
——————
None for the Petitioner.
Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : September 23, 2026.
P. C. :

1. None appears on behalf of the Petitioner. We have perused the

papers and proceedings.

2. By the Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to Respondent

No. 2, the Collector, to decide the representation dated 8 th September,

2025. Perusal of the representation would indicate that the Petitioner

claims that, in the second appeal proceedings, there was a consent

decree between the parties as regards partition of the subject land, and

seeks the partition to be carried out as per the map.

3. It is open for the Petitioner to adopt execution proceedings for

executing the consent decree. The Petition is clearly misconceived and

stands dismissed.

[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Jamadar - SL 1 of 1

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…