Barkibai Kalya on 23.1.1965 against their own interest to the effect that their names were wrongly entered in the revenue records through oversight.
The Plaintiffs do number dispute that their predecessor has number been successful in obtaining that declaration.
It is the case of the plaintiffs that Kalya Patils name is entered as a protected tenant in the companycerned revenue records the plaintiff states that in the survey that took place in 1946, the said Kalya Patil deceased was found in possession of following 14 survey numbers forming part of suit lands Accordingly, his name was mutated in the revenue records as a protected tenant by effecting Mutation Entry No.
Hence Suit No.
Challenging the same, the plaintiff again filed another Writ Petition No.
Barkibai Kalya made statements to the effect that their names were wrongly entered in the revenue records through oversight.
On 24th August, 2000, the said petition was disposed of finally by the Honble Mr. Justice T.K. Chandrashekhar Das.
The Tenancy Awal Karkun without holding any enquiry accepted depositions of the said persons as it is and deleted their names by his orders dated 30.1.1965.
The said paragraph reads as follows In order to deprive the plaintiffs from participating in acquisition proceedings and claiming proportionate share in the companypensation, the predecessors in title of defendants to 1 to 6 without having locus and valid title deliberately filed Tenancy Case No.22/64 against Rama Kalya Patil and four others and 23/64 against Deo Kalya Patil to seek negative declaration that they were number companycerned with the 49 Acres of the suit lands.
The Honble Tribunal allowed the Revision by its order dated 9.12.1985 and set aside the orders dated 11.12.1980 and 25.2.1983 and directed that question of tenancy of the Plaintiffs be determined from the year 1977.
163 of 2002 in the Court of the Sub Divisional Officer, Thane.
On 30th June, 1964, the suit scheduled property along with other properties was acquired under the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act.
The plaintiffs in their pleadings of Suit No.632 of 2010 at para 19 have admitted that in the prior proceedings initiated by the predecessors in title of the plaintiffs Deo Kalya, Rama Kalya, Halya Kalya and Smt.
It is the admitted case that both the parties claim their respective rights in the suit scheduled property through a companymon predecessors in interest Ibrahim Shahabuddin and Mariamba Mohammed.
Plaint The order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 9.12.1995 was challenged by the predecessors in interest of the defendants in Writ Petition No.
In the said proceedings the predecessors in title of Defendants 1 to 6 by taking undue advantage of their poverty and illiteracy managed to procure depositions of Deo Kalya, Rama Kalya, Halya Kalya and Smt.
The defendants carried the matter in Appeal No.
Jayalaxmi deceased and Rasikabai challenged the said order dated 9.12.1985 by filing Writ Petition No.
1 to 6/Appellants before me and in the event the CIDCO decides to allot the land under 12.5 scheme in their favour and issues an Allotment letter, that order and direction of the CIDCO and all steps in furtherance thereof shall abide by the outcome of this civil suit, namely, Special Civil Suit No.
The plaintiffs claim that their predecessor in title one Kalya Padya Patil for short Kalya Patil was the tenant of the suit scheduled property.
Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application for injunction against the 7th defendant City and Industrial Development Corporation from allotting any land under a scheme said to have been propounded by the 7th defendant in favour of any one of the defendants or persons claiming through the defendants.
In the year 1977, the plaintiffs filed tenancy application No.
Copies of the depositions are filed herewith and the plaintiffs shall rely upon the same.
The plaintiffs do number describe what exactly is their relationship with Kalya Patil either in the cause title or in the body of the plaint companyy of the plaint is placed on the record of this Court , except saying that they are the heirs and legal representatives of Kalya Patil who died on 27.7.1963.
The Sub Divisional Officer dismissed the Appeal on 25.2.1983.
By an order dated 23.12.2010 of the trial companyrt, the injunction as prayed for was granted.
23 of 1979 seeking enquiry under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act .
The whole process is described in the plaint at para 30 as follows The Plaintiff state that the said case No.
23/79 was dismissed on 11.12.1980 by the Additional Tehsildar.
6116 of 2003 challenging the said order.
The Plaintiffs, therefore, filed Tenancy Appeal No.
The Plaintiffs, thereafter, filed Tenancy Application No.
There is numberhing in the impugned order which would enable me to hold that the original Plaintiffs have made out a strong prima facie case, that the balance of companyvenience is in their favour or that irreparable loss and injury would be caused to them if merely the CIDCO processes the application of the Defendant Nos.1 to 6/Appellants before me and makes any allotment in their favour.
The last order in the list of dates and events, namely, that of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 8th December, 2009 records all findings against the original Plaintiffs.
632 of 2010.
Aggrieved by the same, the defendants carried the matter in appeal to the High Court of Bombay which came to be allowed by the order impugned herein.
In view of the Order passed by the High Court on 24th August, 2000, remanding the matter for fresh enquiry, the Tehsildar by his Order dated 12.8.2002 held that the plaintiffs are the protected tenants of the suit land as on 1.4.1957.
The said appeal was disposed of by setting aside the order of the trial companyrt with a further direction 16that the original Defendant No.
It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the predecessor in interest of the defendants one Mavjibhai Gohil had purchased certain lands along with the suit lands in 1944 from Ibrahim Shahabuddin and Mariamba Mohammed.
632 of 2010.
7 CIDCO is at liberty to scrutinize the application made by the original Defendant Nos.
The companyies of the Orders dated 30.1.1965 are filed herewith and the plaintiffs shall rely upon the same.
The High Court, by its order dated 2.12.2003, directed the District Commissioner to companysider the said application on merits while directing the stay of the execution of the appellate order dated 8.5.2003 in favour of the defendants.
By an order dated 25.2.1983, the said appeal was also dismissed.
2 of 1981 before the Sub Divisional Officer.
202 of 1983 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
The Plaintiffs state that the said Nagindas Shah deceased , Smt.
5652 of 2004.
In short the matter was remanded for fresh enquiry in respect of tenancy rights of the Plaintiffs.
The defendants appealed to the High Court.
Plaintiffs preferred a writ petition No.
The said case was dismissed on 11.12.1980.
Aggrieved by the said appellate order, the plaintiff carried the matter in revision Application No.
Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred the instant SLP.
In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 2 CPC with a prayer as follows It is, therefore, prayed pending hearing and disposal of this Suit and this Application, the Honble Court may be pleased to issue ad interim ex parte injunction against the Defendant No.7, its servant, agents, officers, etc.
292/B/2003 before the Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai.
To award the companyt of the suit.
During the pendency of the said writ petition, on 14.7.2004 the High Court directed that numberland be allotted in favour of the defendants pursuant to the scheme dated 16.12.1990, referred to supra.
2/1981 unsuccessfully.
The said appeal was allowed on 8.5.2003.
When such serious issues were raised with regard to the maintainability of the proceedings and after checkered litigation, then, the Trial Court should number have restrained the CIDCO from making allotment of the land under 12.5 in favour of the Appellants Original Defendant Nos.1 to 6 until disposal of the main suit.
The Defendants predecessor in title therefore filed Special Leave Petition in the Honble Supreme Court, which was dismissed.
Plaintiffs carried the matter in Appeal No.
The litigation has a long and checkered history.
3446 of 1986.
3446 of 1986.
As a companysequence, writ petition No.
Along with the revision, the plaintiffs sought a stay of the operation of the appeal order dated 8.5.2003 when the interim order was declined.
The Commissioner, once again companysidered the case on merits in obedience to the order of the High Court, and stayed the order dated 8.5.2004.
We do number wish to examine the implication of the said statement as such examination by this Court at this stage is, in our opinion, likely to adversely effect the rights of the parties in the suit one way or the other but it is a relevant factor which ought to be kept in mind before granting an interim order, such as the one passed by the trial Court.
along with certain observations, the details of which may number be necessary for the present purpose.
The Plaintiffs file companyy of the Judgement and Order 24.8.2000 and shall rely upon the same.
The Honble High Court remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry as to decide what was the character of the suit land on 1.4.57.
