1 W.P.No.6043/11 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6043 OF 2010. Govind S/o Yadavrao Hiwrale, Age 19 years,Occ.At present Nil, R/o C/o Nivrutti Tukaram Wadje, Srinagar Road, Near Hanuman Temple, Dist.Nanded. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Yadav S/o Pundalik Hiwrale, Age 50 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Village Jambhali, Tq.Mukhed, Dist.Nanded. 2. Vishwambhar S/o Bhujangrao Shinde, Age 40 years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o Village Kerur, Tq.Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. ... Respondents. ... Mr.M.V.Ghatge, advocate holding for Mr.B.N.Gadegaonkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.U.B.Bilolikar, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.Amol S.Gandhi, advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 29.11.2011. 2 W.P.No.6043/11 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner impugns the order dated 15.4.2009, passed by the Addl.District Judge, Kandhar, thereby allowing the application filed by the present Respondent No.1 U/s 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. Vide the impugned order, permission was granted to the Respondent No.1 to sell the property of the present petitioner who was at the relevant time minor. 4. Mr.Ghatge, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present Respondents have obtained the impugned order by playing fraud upon the Court. The Respondents suppressed the material facts. In fact, by the compromise decree, the present petitioner became the owner of the property for which permission was sought and in the said compromise decree it was 3 W.P.No.6043/11 specifically agreed that the mother of the present petitioner is the guardian of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it is the father who had killed the mother and father was also prosecuted. The learned counsel contends that the permission was obtained just 20 days before petitioner became major. The learned counsel further contends that the property which is sold is much more valuable than the property Gat No.144 shown to have been purchased from the said sale proceeds. The transaction is also inequitable. Other contentions are also raised. 5. Mr.Bilolikar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that the sale was in the interest of the minor. The Respondent No.1 is a natural guardian and as he is the natural guardian, the Respondent No.1 had every right to sell the property by obtaining permission. No fraud has been committed. The Respondent No.1 was wrongly prosecuted and he has also been acquitted which shows falsity of the prosecution. The other property is purchased i.e. Gat No.144 admeasuring 60 ares. The petitioner can have the 4 W.P.No.6043/11 benefit of the said property and the same is also mutated in his name. 6. Mr.Gandhi, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 also supports the order and submits that the Respondent No.2 bonafidely after verifying that the provisions of law are complied and the permission for sale has been obtained, has purchased the property and parted with the consideration amount. The Respondent No.2 is not at fault. Even otherwise, the petitioner has filed Civil suit challenging the sale transaction and in the Civil suit all these facts can be decided. 7. The fact that there was a compromise decree and the Respondent No.1 agreed that the mother of the petitioner would be the guardian of the petitioner is not disputed. It is also a matter of record that just prior to 20 days of the petitioner attaining majority, the permission was obtained. This Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would not be in a position 5 W.P.No.6043/11 to investigate and enquire into the factual matrix of the alleged fraud and the other factors. The Division Bench of Nagpur High court in a case of "Sonba Vs. Narayan and others" reported in A.I.R. 1924 Nagpur 269, has held that the District Judge can review his own order granting sanction for sale. In view of that it would be in fitness of things to direct the District Court to reconsider the said petition for permission to sell on its own merits after taking into consideration the averments made by the rival parties and after giving due opportunity to them to put forth their case. 8. In light of the above, I quash and set aside the impugned order and relegate the parties before the District Court for deciding the said application bearing Misc.Application No.1/2009 filed U/s 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 afresh. 9. In the result, I pass the following order : 6 W.P.No.6043/11 (a) The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The parties are relegated to the District Court for deciding Misc.Civil Application No. 1/2009 filed by the present Respondent U/s 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, afresh. All the parties shall have opportunity to put forth their case. (b) Till the decision on said Misc.Civil Application No.1/2009, the further proceedings in R.C.S.No.92/2009, pending before Civil Judge (J.D.),Mukhed shall remain stayed. (c) The transaction of sale affected pursuant to the impugned order shall be subject to the decision in Misc.Civil Application No. 1/2009 and till the said application is decided, the possession of the parties shall not be disturbed. (d) The petitioner shall also not deal with the property Gat No.144 which is purchased in the name of the petitioner after the permission impugned in the present Writ Petition was 7 W.P.No.6043/11 granted. (e) The parties shall appear before the District Court on 19.12.2011. The respective parties shall not alienate or create third party interest of whatsoever nature in property bearing Gat No.37 i.e. the property sold pursuant to the permission granted and Gat No.144 i.e. the land purchased in the name of petitioner. (f) Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp604311