The persons who are parties to the settlement of the matter have also filed individual affidavits endorsing the companypromise entered into between the parties.
Revision filed by the appellants before Additional Commissioner was dismissed vide order dated 30.03.1989 companyfirming the order of the Additional Collector.
Chandu father of appellants has alienated 5 acres of land to respondents Bakru s o Rangnath and Sheelabai w o Uttamrao Deshpande.
The said application was allowed ex parte on 27.07.1984.
Area HR Hausabai Tukaram Punde 19 0.49 R Hausabai Tukaram Punde 18C 0.22 R Hausabai Tukaram Punde 18A 0.13 R Hausabai Tukaram Punde 17 0.36 R Hausabai Tukaram Punde 24 0.40 R Total 1.60 R 4 Acre Total Land to Respondent 4.70 R Intervenor Purchaser Janyabai Barku Raut 2 0.50 R Barku Raghunath Raut 3 0.63 R Shriram Kashinath Wakle 6 0.23 R Annapurna Shriram Wakle 8 0.23 R Babasaheb Shriram Wakle 10 0.46 R Kushinath Eknath Kale 12B 0.20 R Kushinath Eknath Kale 20 0.20 R Kushinath Eknath Kale 22 0.20 R Vimalbai Babasaheb Kale 12A 0.20 R Vimalbai Babasaheb Kale 14A 0.20 R Rajendra Eknath Kale 14B 0.20 R Rajendra Eknath Kale 21 0.20 R Yogesh Babasaheb Kale 11 0.20 R Yogesh Babasaheb Kale 13 0.20 R Yogesh Babasaheb Kale 23 0.20 R Parigabai Digamber Shrigule 18B 0.05 R Total 4.10 R 10 Acre 10 Gunthe Particular of Total Land Branch A 1.55 R 3 Acre 35 Gunthe Branch B 1.55 R 3 Acre 35 Gunthe Branch C 1.60 R 4 Acre Total 4.70 R 11 Acre 30 Gunthe Intervenor 4.10 R 10 Acre 10 Gunthe Water Project 2.84 R 7 Acre 4 Gunthe Total Land 11.64 R 29 Acre 4 Gunthe The above suit land is divided into plots and allotted as indicated in the chart are marked in the map sketch filed Annexure A5 .
Area HR Kailash Madan Punde 4A 0.26 R Kailash Madan Punde 5 0.17 R Kailash Madan Punde 9 0.34 R Devidas Madan Punde 1 0.61 R Devidas Madan Punde 7 0.17 R Total 1.55 R 3 Acre 35 Gunthe Branch C Tukaram Kisan Punde Dead Plot No.
Aggrieved by the above order, appellants have preferred this appeal.
Possession of the suit land was given to Vasudeorao who gave possession to the father of the appellants.
Aggrieved by the order of Additional Commissioner, appellants filed the writ petition.
We have heard learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record.
Aggrieved by such alienation, sons of Kisan namely Vithal, Tukaram, Kachru and Madan filed petition before the Additional Collector, Aurangabad for termination of the mortgage and restoration of possession under Section 10 of the Prevention of Agricultural Lands Alienation Act, 1939 read with Section 103 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.
The suit land was owned by Kisan Punde father of respondents No.1 to 4 herein and the land was Signature Not Verified mortgaged to one Vasudeorao for Rs.200/ in 1941 and which was Digitally signed by further mortgaged to Chandu Narsingh Pardeshi father of appellants in MADHU BALA Date 2019.12.04 174523 IST Reason the year 1942.
The said Writ Petition No.1389 of 1989 filed by the appellants before the High Court was dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.01.2005 holding that the proceedings initiated by the sons of Kisan namely Vithal, Tukaram, Kachru and Madan is maintainable.
The said order was challenged before the Additional Commissioner.
Kisan Punde, predecessor in title of the respondents namely Vithal, Tukaram, Kachru and Madan erstwhile respondents No.1 to 4 was the owner of the agricultural land.
Appellants are thus the mortgagees of the suit land admeasuring 29 acres and 4 gunthas situated at Dhondalgaon, Aurangabad and they are in possession since 1942 vide mortgage deed dated 25.02.1942.
The Registry is directed to draft a decree in terms of the Memo of Compromise effected between the parties.A Allotted Kachru Kishan Punde Dead Plot No.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of Memo of Compromise.
The Additional Collector after companysideration of evidence placed before him, by order dated 14.05.1988, recorded a finding that respondents No.1 to 4 sons of Kisan are entitled to have possession of the suit property as per Section 10 of the 1939 Act and allowed the application filed by sons of Kisan.
Area HR Dnyaneswar Sharjaram Pawar 4B 0.75 Gayabai Machhindra Pawar 4C 0.36 Gayabai Machhindra Pawar 16 0.44 Total 1.55 3 Acre 35 Gunthe Branch B Madan Kisan Punde Dead Plot No.
The Additional Commissioner in appeal remanded the case to the Additional Collector on 12.03.1986 with a direction to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
The terms of Compromise Annexure A3 and the maps sketches Annexure A5 filed thereon showing the division of the properties amongst the parties, shall form part of this judgment.
Respondents No.1, 2 and 6 were deleted from the array of parties at the risk of the appellants vide order of this Court dated 23.08.2011.
BANUMATHI, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 13.01.2005 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No.1389 of 1989 whereby the High Court held that the predecessors in title of the appellants namely Vasudeo and Chandu cannot take advantage of Section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.
