AANANDA NATTHU PATIL DIED THROUGH LRS KAMALBAI ANANDA DEORE DIED AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:37887
                                                  1                  WP 3691-2025 (J).odt


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 3691 OF 2025

             1.      Aananda Natthu Patil (Deceased)
                     Through L.Rs.

             1-a.    Kamalbai Ananda Deore (Deceased)

             1-b.    Sanjay Ananda Deore
                     Age: -47yrs, Occ.: - Agriculture

             1-c.    Vijay Ananda Deore (Deceased)
                     Through L.Rs.

             1-c-1. Manisha Vijay Deore (Patil)
                    Age: -Major, Occ.: - Household

             1-c-2. Satish Vijay Deore (Patil)
                    Age: -Major, Occ.: Agriculture

             1-c-3. Vaishali Vishal Pawar
                    Age: -Major, Occ.: - Household

             1-d.    Ratnabai Ranjit Patil
                     Age: -44yrs, Occ.: - Household

             1-e.    Jyotibai Ravindra Patil
                     Age: -44yrs, Occ.: - Household

                     All R/o. Chittegaon, Tal. Chalisgaon,
                     Dist. Jalgaon                                 … PETITIONERS

                                                VERSUS

             1.      State of Maharashtra
                     Through Collector, Jalgaon

             2.      Special Land Acquisition Officer (I)
                     Upper Tapi Project, Hatnur, Jalgaon

             3.      Executive Engineer,
                     Laghu Patbandhare Department, Jalgaon
                                    2                        WP 3691-2025 (J).odt


4.     Bhimabai Baban Patil
       Since Deceased through L.Rs.

4.a.   Sopan Navalsingh (Baban) Patil
       Age: 57 years, Occupation: Agriculture,
       R/o. Sambre Chawl, Shivajinagar Wada,
       Palghar, Tal. & Dist. Palghar

5.     Daulat Lala Patil
       Since Deceased through L.Rs.

5.a.   Dilipkumar Daulat Rajput (Patil)
       Age: -60yrs, Occ.: - Business
       R/o. Ward no.20, Power House Colony,
       Loni Burhanpur, Tal. & Dist. Burhanpur,
       Madhya Pradesh

6.     Natthu Mansingh Patil
       Since Deceased through L.Rs.

6.a.   Dharma Natthu Patil
       Age : 83yrs, Occ.: - Agriculture
       R/o. Pimpri Bk., Ganeshpur,
       Tal. Chalisgaon & Dist. Jalgaon             … RESPONDENTS

                                   …
Mr. Niranjan V. Dhake – Advocate for Petitioners
Ms. Vaishali S. Chaudhary – AGP for Respondent(s)/State
                                   …

               CORAM                 :    MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
               RESERVED ON   :            12.08.2026
               PRONOUNCED ON :            21.08.2026

JUDGMENT:
1.     Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties,

the petition is heard finally.


2.     The petitioners are challenging the order passed by the learned 3 rd

Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in Regular Darkhast No.175 of
                                   3                         WP 3691-2025 (J).odt


2020, whereby the application below Exhibit 52 filed by the petitioners

came to be rejected. By the said application, the petitioners sought

deletion of the names of deceased persons and unnecessary applicants

from the execution proceedings, on the ground that they had already

relinquished their rights in favour of the present petitioners and,

therefore, had no subsisting interest in the execution proceedings.


3.    Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that Ananda Natthu

Patil and respondent No.4 – Bhimabai Baban Patil are siblings and

successors of Natthu Mansingh Patil. Respondent No.5 – Daulat Lala Patil

was the cousin son-in-law of Natthu Mansingh Patil and land bearing Gat

No.167/A was mortgaged in his favour. The said mortgage was redeemed

and a registered deed to that effect was executed by respondent No.5 on

08.12.2005. Thus, Natthu Mansingh Patil was the original ancestor,

owner and possessor of land bearing Gat Nos.167/A and 167/B, situated

at Pimpri Bk. Pra. Cha., Taluka Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon. The said land

was acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by order dated

03.11.2017.


4.    The award came to be passed in the name of Ananda Natthu Patil

and respondent Nos.4 to 6 in L.A.R. No.519 of 2009 on 03.11.2017, in

respect of gat No.167/A. Ananda Natthu Patil died during the pendency

of L.A.R. No.519 of 2009. The legal representatives of Ananda Natthu

Patil were brought on record. The petitioners, along with respondent
                                  4                        WP 3691-2025 (J).odt


Nos.4 to 6 were accordingly shown as applicants in Regular Darkhast

No.175 of 2020, pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon.

It is submitted that Ananda Natthu Patil died during the pendency of

L.A.R. No.519 of 2009 and subsequently, his legal representatives were

brought on record at the time of filing of the execution proceedings.

Respondent Nos.4 to 6 were also added as applicants in the execution

proceedings as their names appeared in the award.


5.    The original owner, Natthu Mansingh Patil, who was holding land

bearing Gat No.167/A died on 01.11.1987. After his death, the names of

Ananda Natthu Patil and Dharma Natthu Patil were entered in the record

of rights as possessors, whereas the name of Bhimabai Naval Patil was

entered in the other rights column. The said mutation entry was never

subjected to challenge and has remained unchallenged for more than

thirty years. Land bearing Gat No.167/A was recorded in the name of

Ananda Natthu Patil, whereas Gat No.167/B was recorded in the name of

Dharma Natthu Patil. Ananda Natthu Patil relinquished his rights in Gat

No.167/B in favour of Dharma Natthu Patil and Dharma Natthu Patil, in

turn, relinquished his rights in Gat No.167/A in favour of Ananda Natthu

Patil. Accordingly, mutation entries bearing Nos.330 and 331 came to be

recorded on 04.12.1989.


6.    It is further submitted that, although the loan secured by the

mortgage in favour of respondent No.5 – Daulat Lala Patil had been
                                   5                         WP 3691-2025 (J).odt


repaid, his name continued to appear in the other rights column in

respect of Gat No.167/A. In order to remove the said ambiguity,

respondent Nos.4 and 5 executed a registered relinquishment deed

relinquishing of their respective rights in favour of Ananda Natthu Patil in

respect of Gat No.167/A and in favour of Dharma Natthu Patil in respect

of Gat No.167/B. The said deed was registered before the Joint Sub-

Registrar, Class-II, Chalisgaon, on 08.12.2005 as Document No.6766 of

2005.


7.      However, due to an inadvertent mistake in the said deed dated

08.12.2005, Gat No.167/A was mentioned as Gat No.167/B, though the

boundaries and the names of the owners remained the same. Thus, a

discrepancy crept up with regard to the Gat numbers, is the registered

relinquishment deed dated 08.12.2005. Mutation Entry No.707 was

taken on revenue records on the basis of deed dated 08.12.2005. It is

submitted that in the relinquishment deed two properties are rightly

mentioned and their description with the boundaries and area is also

appropriately given. However, while referring the gat numbers of both

the properties, inadvertently gat No.167/B is mentioned in respect of

both the properties.


8.      On realisation of mistake, it was corrected by executing notarized

relinquishment deed in respect of gat No.167/B in favour of Ananda

Natthu Patil on 17.03.2009, and accordingly Mutation Entry No.835 is
                                    6                          WP 3691-2025 (J).odt


recorded on 13.04.2009. This Mutation Entry No.835 is not challenged

till date. Thus, respondent Nos.4 to 6 have no right, title or interest in the

gat No.167/A. Due to failure of Advocate for the petitioners to take

timely steps names of respondent Nos.4 to 6 appeared in award passed in

L.A.R. No.519 of 2007.


9.    Against the aforesaid background, the petitioners filed an

application before the Executing Court seeking deletion of the names of

respondent Nos.4 to 6 from the execution proceedings. It was specifically

stated in the application that respondent Nos.4 and 5 had already

relinquished their rights in favour of deceased Ananda Natthu Patil on

08.12.2005 in respect of Gat Nos.167/A and 167/B. Though there was a

discrepancy in the Gat numbers mentioned in the relinquishment deed,

the same was sought to be explained by an affidavit filed before the

Tahsildar on 04.02.2009, stating that the discrepancy was the result of an

inadvertent mistake in the relinquishment deed.


10.   It is submitted that applicant No.2 – Bhimabai Navalsingh Patil

died during the pendency of the proceedings on 22.02.2022, and

respondent No.3 – Daulat Lala Patil died on 17.01.2019. The rights in the

acquired land were already relinquished in favour of applicant No.1

pursuant to Mutation Entries Nos.707 and 835. The son of applicant

No.3, Dilipkumar Daulat Rajput (Patil), also submitted an affidavit stating

that applicant No.3 had relinquished his rights in favour of applicant
                                    7                         WP 3691-2025 (J).odt


No.1.


11.     From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that applicant No.4 – Natthu

Mansingh Patil was the father of applicant Nos.1 and 2 and the father-in-

law of applicant No.3. Natthu Patil died on 01.11.1987. The property

bearing Gat Nos.167/A and 167/B devolved upon applicant Nos.1 and 2

and Dharma Natthu Patil by inheritance. Despite the relinquishment

deeds executed by the concerned interested parties i.e. applicant Nos.2

and 3, their names came to be included in the execution proceedings

inadvertently. Applicant No.4 had also died before the award came to be

passed in the L.A.R. Nevertheless, his name was inadvertently shown in

the execution proceedings. It is submitted that the names of applicant

Nos.2, 3 and 4 have already been deleted from the L.A.R. in respect of

Gat No.167/B.


12.     Thus, the petitioners filed the application seeking deletion of

applicant Nos.2 to 4 from the execution proceedings, supported by the

relinquishment deeds executed by applicant Nos.2 and 3 and affidavits of

their legal representatives. However, the learned 3 rd Joint Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Jalgaon, rejected the said application on the ground that

a similar application at Exhibit 42 had already been rejected on

18.07.2024 and that the subsequent application had been filed without

disclosing the earlier application. The learned Judge held that, once the

relief had been rejected, the same relief could not be granted in the same
                                   8                        WP 3691-2025 (J).odt


proceedings by invoking Section 151 of the C.P.C. and, accordingly,

rejected the application for want of bona fides.


13.   On perusal of the earlier application at Exhibit 42 and the order

passed thereon, it appears that there were certain discrepancies with

regard to the middle name of Bhimabai Navalsingh Patil and no

clarification had been furnished in that regard. The death certificate of

Natthu Mansingh Patil was not produced.


14.   Another objection was with regard to the relinquishment deeds

executed by applicant Nos.2 and 3. These deeds were required to be

registered under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, which were not

duly registered and were merely notarized, the same could not be taken

into consideration while granting the relief sought by the petitioners.

Consequently, the earlier application came to be rejected by order dated

18.07.2024 holding that on account of ambiguity in the application, the

prayer of the applicants cannot be granted.


15.   The earlier application has been filed for deletion of applicant

Nos.2 to 4, which has been rejected by recording a finding that, there are

ambiguities in the application, therefore the prayers cannot be

considered. The application has not been rejected by holding that they

are necessary parties and their continuation as applicants is necessary in

the execution application. The application has not been decided on
                                    9                          WP 3691-2025 (J).odt


merits. Thus, the subsequent application filed by removing the

ambiguities is maintainable. Hence, the subsequent application would not

be barred.


16.   The application at Exhibit 52 is filed invoking Order I Rule 10(2)

read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., removing the ambiguities as observed

in the order on application at Exhibit 42. It is also needs to be

appreciated that, the application is filed to delete the names of co-

applicants who have relinquished their rights in favour of applicant No.1

prior to their death. It is supported by the affidavits of the legal

representatives of applicant Nos.2 to 4, filed before the Court of Civil

Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in Regular Darkhast No. 175 of 2020

stating that their deceased ancestors i.e. applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4 had

relinquished their rights in respect of property i.e. gat No.167/A and they

have no surviving rights in it. Similar affidavits have been filed before this

Court. Thus, the legal representatives of the applicants whose deletion is

sought to have been given their consent for deleting their names from the

execution proceedings. As such, as on today their remains no ambiguity,

with regards to the merit of application at Exhibit 52.


17.   In the present Writ Petition also affidavits have been filed on behalf

of respondent Nos.4.a, 5.a and 6.a, representing the legal representatives

of applicant Nos.2 to 4. They have categorically stated that they have no

objection to deletion of the names of their respective ancestors from
                                  10                         WP 3691-2025 (J).odt


Regular Darkhast No.175 of 2020 pending before the Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Jalgaon.


18.   Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C. empowers the Court, at any stage of

the proceedings, without an application of either parties to strike out the

name of any person who has been improperly joined and to add the name

of any person whose presence before the Court may be necessary for

effectively and completely adjudicating upon and settling the questions

involved in the proceedings. Similarly, Order XXI Rule 101 of the C.P.C.

contemplates adjudication of questions arising in execution proceedings

concerning the rights of the parties in relation to the subject matter of

execution.


19.   When we read the two provisions cohesively the aforesaid

provisions enables the Court to entertain the application filed by the

petitioners to be considered on its own merits. The parties whose names

are sought to be deleted have already executed registered relinquishment

deeds and their legal representatives have also filed affidavits before this

Court as well as before the Executing Court categorically stating that they

have no claim or interest in the subject property. They have also stated

that their predecessors had already relinquished their respective rights.


20.   In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, it would be

just and proper to set aside the impugned order and allow the writ
                                     11                          WP 3691-2025 (J).odt


petition.


21.      Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’.


22.      Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.




                                             [ MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ]




Pooja Kale/