Bombay High Court

SHESHRAO KISHANRAO BHALERAO DIED THR LRS KAMLABAI AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: ABASAHEB D SHINDE

Holding

An order passed against a dead person is a nullity and must be set aside.

Summary

The petitioners, legal heirs of the deceased Sheshrao Kishanrao Bhalerao, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 12.10.2022 issued by the District Magistrate/Collector, Hingoli, which handed over possession of immovable property to them. The petitioners argued that the order was passed against a dead person, rendering it a nullity. The court held that any order or decree passed against a deceased individual is indeed a nullity and quashed the impugned order. The court further observed that setting aside the order would not prejudice the bank's (respondents 4 and 5) right to pursue loan recovery proceedings. It permitted the bank to withdraw the Rs.10,00,000 deposited by the petitioners, along with accrued interest, without prejudice to any other rights. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether an order passed against a deceased person is a nullity.
Whether quashing such an order affects the bank's right to recover a loan.
Whether the bank may withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioners.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules — s. 107

Subjects

nullity of order
deceased person
possession notice
cooperative societies
bank loan recovery
writ petition
High Court
quash order

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:8589
                                           1                          923.WP.5218.24.odt


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 5218 OF 2024

                        SHESHRAO KISHANRAO BHALERAO DIED THR
                               LRS KAMLABAI AND OTHERS
                                        VERSUS
                            THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR
                                SECRETARY AND OTHERS

                                                 ...
                    Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Suryawanshi Kamlakar J.
                       AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. Madhukar A. Aher
                     Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 : Mr. P.S. Agrawal
                                                 ...

                                  CORAM          :   ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.


                                  DATE           : 20.02.2026


             PER COURT:

             1.           Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

             learned AGP as well as the learned counsel for the contesting

             respondents.

             2.           By this Writ Petition, the petitioners are taking an

             exception to the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the respondent

             No.2-District Magistrate/Collector, Hingoli bearing outward No.

             2021/DC-1/MCS Act/C.R. No.-02 as well as the possession notice

             dated 10.05.2024 issued by the respondent No.3-Circle Officer,
                            2                           923.WP.5218.24.odt


Hingoli.

3.    It seems that pursuant to an application filed by the

respondent Nos.4 and 5 under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-

operative Societies Rules, 1961, the respondent No.2-District

Magistrate/Collector, Hingoli has passed the impugned order dated

12.10.2022 for handing over the possession of immovable property

to the petitioners.

4.    Apparently, the impugned order passed by the respondent

No.2 is against deceased- Sheshrao Kishanrao Bhalerao who expired

on 16.09.2013 and therefore, the impugned order has been passed

against a dead person.

5.    It is settled position of law that any order or decree passed

against a dead person is a nullity. In that view of the matter, I find

that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set-aside solely

on the said ground.

6.    Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5/Bank would

submit that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 should not be construed to

have been precluded from taking out appropriate proceedings at an

appropriate stage for recovery of loan against the petitioners being

legal heirs of deceased- Sheshrao Kishanrao Bhalerao.

7.    I find that since, this Writ Petition is restricted only to the
                               3                           923.WP.5218.24.odt


extent of challenging the impugned order on the ground that the

same has been passed against a dead person, hence setting aside of

the impugned order will not come in the way of respondent Nos.4

and 5 in resorting to the remedies permissible under law.

8.      Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 would further

submit that since the petitioners have deposited an amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Only) pursuant to the order dated

30.05.2024 passed by this Court, the same may be permitted to be

withdrawn by respondent Nos.4 and 5.

9.      I find that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of

the parties, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 is permitted to withdraw

the said amount alongwith the interest accrued thereon.

10.     In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.



                                     (ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)


vsj..

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…