PRAKASHCHAND HIRALAL KARNAWATversusTHE DIRECTOR OF MARKETING M S PUNE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:38140


                                                     1                      902-wp-7132-2017.odt


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 7132 OF 2017

                                     Prakashchand Hiralal Karnawat
                                                 VERSUS
                            The Director Of Marketing M S Pune And Others
                                                     ...
                        Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Suryawanshi Kamlakar J.
                               AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.K. Shirse
                      Advocate for Respondent Nos.5A to 5B : Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni
                            Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. W.S. Jadhav
                                                     ...
                                                 CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                                               DATED     : AUGUST 21, 2026
              P.C.:

              1.           The petitioner and deceased respondent no.5 are real

              brothers. The respondent no.5 has expired and is represented by his

              legal heirs in present petition. The father of petitioner and respondent

              no.5, Late Hiralal was allotted a plot by respondent no.4/Agricultural

              Produce Market Committee (APMC), Lasur. Hiralal, the father expired

              in the year 2003. The plot was allotted by lease for a period of 30 years

              commencing from 12.08.1983.           The tenure of lease expired on

              11.08.2013.       After the demise of Hiralal, respondent no.5 had

              approached the APMC for renewal of lease of plot in his name. The

              APMC had passed a resolution dated 30.01.2015 interalia taking a

              decision to allot the suit plot to respondent no.5. Thereafter, another

              resolution was passed on 29.04.2015 in which it was decided that all
                                     2                       902-wp-7132-2017.odt


the legal heirs of original allottee Hiralal must obtain heirship

certificate from the competent authority and decision to allot the plot

should be taken in accordance with heirship certificate issued by the

competent authority.

2.        Respondent no.5 approached the respondent no.3/District

Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies with an application to direct

respondent no.4/APMC to execute the lease deed in his favour as per

first   resolution   dated   30.01.2015.     Respondent     no.3     vide

order/communication dated 18.04.2016 directed the respondent

no.4/APMC to execute lease deed with respect to the suit plot in favour

of respondent no.5. The said order/communication dated 18.04.2016

was assailed by the present petitioner by filing appeal under Section 43

of APMC Act before respondent no.2/Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-

operative Societies. The said appeal preferred by the petitioner came to

be allowed vide order dated 23.01.2017. The Divisional Joint Registrar

has quashed and set aside order dated 18.04.2016 passed by District

Deputy Registrar/respondent no.3. However, prior to passing of said

order, respondent no.4 had already executed lease deed in favour of

respondent no.5 on 27.05.2016. Respondent no.2 has observed that it

was not necessary to take decision on prayers for cancellation of lease

deed and that scope of appeal was restricted to correctness or otherwise

of order/communication dated 18.04.2016 passed by respondent
                                       3                         902-wp-7132-2017.odt


no.3/District Deputy Registrar.

3.        The said order dated 23.01.2017 passed by the Divisional

Joint Registrar was challenged by respondent no.5 by filing an appeal

under Section 52B of APMC Act before respondent no.1/Director of

Marketing.    The said appeal came to be allowed vide order dated

20.05.2017. Respondent no.1 has quashed and set aside order dated

23.01.2017 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar and directed

respondent no.4/APMC to handover the suit plot to respondent no.5 in

accordance with registered lease deed executed in his favour.            The

petitioner has challenged the said order dated 20.05.2017 passed by

the Director of Marketing.

4.        Before adverting to rival submissions, it will be appropriate to

state that after the impugned order dated 20.05.2017 was passed,

learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Gangapur vide order dated

07.08.2019 issued heirship certificate in form Appendix-B of Bombay

Regulations VIII of 1827 in favour of petitioner, respondent no.5 and

their five sisters. It is not in dispute that present petitioner is allotted

independent plot by APMC and he is conducting his business from the

said property. Apart from the petitioner, another plot in APMC premises

is also allotted to his son. Likewise, it is also not in dispute that

respondent no.5 is not allotted any premises by the APMC. Likewise,

apart from present petitioner and respondent no.5, five daughters of
                                       4                      902-wp-7132-2017.odt


original allottee Hiralal is also his Class-I legal heirs.   The initial

order/communication dated 18.04.2016 is issued by respondent

no.3/District Deputy Registrar without notice or hearing either to the

petitioner or sisters of respondent no.5.         The lease deed dated

27.05.2016 is executed pursuant to said order dated 18.04.2016 passed

by respondent no.3/District Deputy Registrar. It must also be stated

that the subsequent resolution dated 29.04.2015 resolving that

allotment of plot will be done in accordance with heirship certificate to

be produced by descendants of original allottee Hiralal is not

challenged by either parties and still holding the field.

5.        In such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court,

rather than going into merits of matter, it will be appropriate that

respondent no.4/APMC is directed to take a fresh decision in the matter

with respect to allotment of suit plot by affording an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner, respondent no.5 and five sisters, whose names

are included in aforesaid heirship certificate.

6.        Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated

20.05.2017 passed by respondent no.1/Director of Marketing in Appeal

No.05 of 2017 is quashed and set aside.

7.        The respondent no.5/APMC shall take fresh decision in the

matter in accordance with law.        The earlier orders passed by the

authorities shall not be binding on authorities of APMC while such
                                                 5                       902-wp-7132-2017.odt


             decision is taken. Fresh decision be taken as early as possible and in

             any case before 31.12.2026.




                                                       [ROHIT W. JOSHI J.]




Mujaheed//