Bombay High Court
SOU. BHAMABAI BAPUSAHEB BHOSALEversusTHE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BARAMATI AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petitioners' claim of right, title and interest must be adjudicated in a civil suit, and the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners challenged an order dated 22 February 2013 issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer (SDO) under the Maharashtra Agricultural (Maharashtra Agricultural Ceiling of Holdings Amendment) Act, 2011, which returned certain land to other holders. They claimed that they also possessed a right, title and interest in the same land (Gat No. 377 (part) and 378 (part) at Village Kalamb) which the SDO had not considered. The Court held that a writ petition is not the appropriate forum to determine such proprietary rights and that the petitioners must assert their claim by filing a civil suit against the persons to whom the land was re‑allotted. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, but the petitioners were granted liberty to institute a civil suit. An interim application filed by the petitioners was allowed as per the prayer clause, and necessary amendments were ordered.
Issues considered
- Whether the SDO's order under the Maharashtra Agricultural Ceiling Act can be set aside by a writ petition on the ground of the petitioners' alleged right, title and interest in the land.
- Whether the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is a civil suit rather than a writ petition.
Subjects
- agricultural ceiling
- land re‑allotment
- writ petition
- civil suit
- right title interest
- sub‑divisional officer
Judgment
32-WP-8306-16+.doc
Sayali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8306 OF 2016
SAYALI WITH
DEEPAK INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6333 OF 2026
UPASANI
Digitally signed
by SAYALI Bhamabai Bapusaheb Bhosale … Petitioners
DEEPAK
UPASANI V/s.
Date: 2026.08.31
14:52:30 +0530 The Sub Divisional Officer, Baramati and
Others … Respondents
Mr. Graham Francis i/b Mr. V. S. Talkute , for
Petitioner.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : AUGUST 31, 2026
P.C.:
1. The Petitioner impugns an order passed by the SDO in
exercise of power under the Provisions of the Maharashtra
Agricultural (Maharashtra Agricultural Ceiling of Holdings
Amendment) Act, 2011.
2. By virtue of the impugned order dated 22nd February,
2013, the SDO passed an order returning the land to the land
holders stated in the order. The Petitioner’s grievance is that
along with the persons in whose favour, the re-allotment is done,
the petitioners have a right, title and interest in the said land,
which fact was not considered by the SDO.
1
32-WP-8306-16+.doc
3. In my opinion, the petitioners’ claim of right, title and
interest over the land in question, i.e. Gat No. 377 (part) and 378
(part) at Village Kalamb, the appropriate remedy for them is to
establish their right, title and interest by a civil suit against the
persons in whose favour, the impugned order is passed.
4. The petition is therefore, dismissed with liberty to the
petitioners to institute a civil suit to establish their right, title and
interest over the property stated above.
5. All questions related to the right, title and interest over the
property, of the petitioners and respondents, are kept open to be
agitated before the Civil Court in the civil suit proposed to be
filed by the petitioners.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6333 OF 2026
6. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is
allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’.
7. Necessary amendment is to be carried out forthwith.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
2
Checking your session…