jpc wp7939-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7939 OF 2011 Shivaji Sakharam Bendkoli and others ... Petitioners Versus Vikram Digvijay Kapadia and others ... Respondents Ms. Suvarna Joshi i/by F F & Associates for the petitioners Mr. S. G. Karandikar for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 11th November, 2011 P.C. : 1. The order dated 8th June, 2011 passed below Exh.1 in Spl. Civil Suit NO. 350 of 2009 by the learned 6th Civil Judge, Senior Division Nashik is the subject matter of the above writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioners are the original defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 350 of 2009 filed by the respondents herein who are the original plaintiffs, for specific performance of the contract of sale of land. An application came to be filed by the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 to jpc wp7939-11.sxw 2 19, questioning the jurisdiction of the Civil Court since the petitioners are tribals and therefore, the suit filed for specific performance is hit by the provisions of Section 36-C of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, as lands have been agreed to be sold to respondent nos. 1 and 2 without permission of the Collector. The said application was considered by the learned 6th Civil Judge, Senior Division Nashik on the touchstone of the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The concerned land belongs to the tribals and on such consideration, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the Suit for specific performance was maintainable as the said relief could not be granted by the authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, and that the trial Court further observed that ultimately, the specific performance if granted could be made subject to the permission of the Collector. 3. It would be relevant to note that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, in the said suit have claimed the following reliefs that the decree for specific performance be granted and that the petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 to 19 have be directed to obtain permission of the Collector. It is, therefore, clear that the plaintiffs themselves are claiming reliefs in the said terms. Having considered the reasons jpc wp7939-11.sxw 3 mentioned by the learned trial court in rejecting the said preliminary objections, in my view the order passed by the trial Court does not merit any interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)