Bombay High Court
SHRI. SHAILESH HARIBHAU NIKAM AND ANR.versusSHRI. RAMESH PARSHURAM NIKAM AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The petition is dismissed as no fraud on respondent No.6 is established.
Summary
The petitioners, Shailesh HaribhaU Nikam and another, filed a writ petition alleging that respondent No.6 had only consented to the fixation of property boundaries, but the authorities measured the land beyond that consent, constituting fraud. The petitioners claimed this fraud affected their 2013 purchase of the property. The respondents contended that consent was given for full measurements, not merely boundary fixation, and denied any fraud. The Court examined the consent issue and the timing of the purchase, concluding that the petitioners bought the property with full knowledge of the demarcations and therefore no fraud was established. Consequently, the Court found no ground to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed the petition, also disposing of any interim applications.
Issues considered
- Whether respondent No.6's consent was limited to boundary fixation or extended to full land measurement
- Whether fraud was committed against respondent No.6 in the measurement process
- Whether the petitioners' 2013 purchase of the property precludes a claim of fraud
Subjects
- consent
- fraud
- property measurement
- boundary fixation
- writ petition
- dismissal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:36718
Diksha Rane 12 WP 4938 2016.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4938/2016
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2560/2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.4938/2016
SHRI. SHAILESH HARIBHAU NIKAM & ANR ..PETITIONERS
VS
SHRI. RAMESH PARSHURAM NIKAM & ORS ..RESPONDENTS
Adv. Pradeep M. Patil a/w. Adv. Pravinchand B. Gole for
petitioners.
Adv. Manish Bora for respondent no.1.
Adv. Pratik Deomore a/w. Adv. Aasmi Rane for respondent
nos.4 & 5.
Adv. Rohan Deshmukh for respondent no.6.
Shri Y. D. Patil, AGP for respondent – State.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
Per Court :
1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners points out
page 19 of the petition and submits that the consent given by
respondent no.6 was only for fixation of boundaries.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
there is fraud played on respondent no.6 and instead of merely fixing
Page 1 of 2
3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
Diksha Rane 12 WP 4938 2016.docx
the boundaries the authorities have carried out measurements of the
property which was not consented to. However, the learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.6 submits that there is no fraud played
upon them, and they had clearly given consent for measurements of
the land and not merely for fixation of the boundaries.
3. The petitioners have purchased the property in the year
2013 undisputedly. Considering this, the petitioners cannot submit
that the fraud was played upon respondent no.6. The petitioners
have purchased the property after the demarcations with open eyes.
Hence, no case can be canvassed before me that there was fraud
upon respondent no.6. Accordingly, no case is made out to interfere
with the impugned orders. The present petition stands dismissed.
4. In sequel, the interim applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
[ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]
Page 2 of 2
3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/09/2026 20:02:13
Checking your session…