1 wp1958.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1958 OF 2011 1. Namdeo S/o Manik Bhore Age : 56 years, Occ : Agri., 2. Manik S/o Baliram Bhore Age : 85 years, Occ : Nil, 3. Sukhdeo S/o Manik Bhore Age : 54 years, Occ : Agril. All R/o Govardhanwadi, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. ..PETITIONERS -VERSUS- Sojarbai W/o Bhausaheb Samudre Age : 81 years, Occ : Nil, R/o Govardhanwadi, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad, Through power of attorney holder Mahadeo S/o Bhausaheb Samudre age : 45 years, Occ : Agril., R/o Govardhanwadi, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. ..RESPONDENT ..... Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, advocate for petitioners. Mr. P.K. Deshmukh, advocate for respondent. ..... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7982 OF 2010 1. Namdeo S/o Manik Bhore Age : 56 years, Occ : Agri., 2. Manik S/o Baliram Bhore Age : 85 years, Occ : Nil, 2 wp1958.11 3. Sukhdeo S/o Vithal Bhore Age : 45 years, Occ : Agril. All R/o Govardhanwadi, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. ..PETITIONERS -VERSUS- Sojarbai W/o Bhausaheb Samudre Age : 81 years, Occ : Nil, R/o Govardhanwadi, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad, Through power of attorney holder Mahadeo S/o Bhausaheb Samudre age : 45 years, Occ : Agril., R/o Govardhanwadi, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. ..RESPONDENT ..... Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, advocate for petitioners. Mr. S.S. Chaudhari, advocate for respondent. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 17th March, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Both these Petitions are by the judgment debtors. Challenge in Writ Petition no. 7982 of 2010 is to judgment dated 3rd July, 2010 delivered by Adhoc District Judge-1, Osmanabad in Misc. Civil Application no. 33 of 2010 whereby the said Court has granted temporary injunction to respondent-decree holder (plaintiff) by reversing the order of the trial Court passed below Exhibit-5 in R.C.S. No. 306 of 2009. 2. In Writ Petition no. 1958 of 2011 challenge is to order dated 7th March, 2011 passed by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Osmanabad in Misc. Application no. 281 of 2007 below Exhibit-11 3 wp1958.11 granting police aid for 15 days from that date to respondent- plaintiff. 3. Heard finally by making Rule returnable forthwith. 4. Advocate Mrs. Kulkarni for petitioners has contended that prayer for temporary injunction was rightly rejected by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Osmanabad on 30.03.2010. She has invited attention to panchanama drawn by revenue authorities on 27.08.2009 to show that as sugar cane crops worth Rs. 6,50,000 was found standing in gut no. 169 and 174, possession thereof could not be delivered. Respondent-plaintiff agreed to deposit that amount and hence, panchanama specifically records that after deposit of that amount, the possession receipt shall be separately executed. She points out that this state of affairs has been rightly appreciated by the trial Court and approach of appellate court to the same, is incorrect. Her contention is till date, the respondent- plaintiff has not deposited the amount of Rs. 6,50,000/-, and there is no possession receipt executed in her favour after 27.08.2009. 5. In the alternative and without prejudice, it is urged that there are already partition between parties and hence grant of two lands only i.e. gut no. 169 and 174 to respondent-plaintiff by revenue authorities in alleged execution of that partition decree is not legal. The partition has to be equitable and that grievance made by the present petitioner is still pending before the additional commissioner. The additional commissioner has directed parties including the revenue authorities to maintain status-quo and hence possession of gut no. 169 and 174 could not have been handed over to the respondent-plaintiff. She is placing reliance upon the 4 wp1958.11 judgment of this Court reported at " 2007(6)Bom.C.R. 48" ( Mahadu Narayan Pawar deceased through his legal heirs and ors V/s Additional Commissioner and others) to show how undue haste in such matters by revenue authorities has been criticized by this Court looking to paramount interest of achieving equitable partition. 6. In Writ Petition no. 1958 of 2011 the argument is, if the respondent-plaintiff was already placed in possession on 27.08.2009, there is no need of any police aid. The application filed for that purpose is pressed into service to urge, that application is vague and does not show that crops standing on the date of application i.e. 10.12.2010 was sown by respondent. In this background the impugned order is also read out to this Court to urge that it does not contain any application of mind to find out whether ingredients for grant of such police aid are made out. The support is being taken of the judgment of Single Bench of this Court reported at " 1995 (1) Mh.L.J. 529" ( Ratnabai Narayanrao Naik and another V/s Satwarao Narayanrao Naik). 7. Advocate Mr. Chaudhari with Advocate Mr. Deshmukh for respondent in the matters has supported both the orders. Respective counsel point out that the panchanama on which reliance is being placed is duly looked into by the appellate Court. They placed reliance upon the communication dated 29.08.2009 forwarded thereafter in this connection to Tahsildar. It is the contention of the respondent that possession was handed over on 27.08.2009 itself. As this fact and the challenge of petitioners is looked into by the appellate Court, there is no jurisdictional error or perversity. It is further urged that in means profit proceedings Civil 5 wp1958.11 Court has directed the present petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs. 6,95,996/- towards means profit under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code and this payment is also taken into account by the appellate Court with findings that the said payment is still not received by the respondent. It is also urged that the respondent had on 17.12.2009 approached the Tahsildar for depositing the amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- but then no orders have been passed on that application till date. 8. Without prejudice to all these contentions, it is urged that the crop standing on 27.08.2009 has been removed by the petitioner clandestinely and the criminal complaint has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner. In those proceedings to avoid arrest, the petitioners contended that the possession was of respondent. The panchanama mentions sugar cane crops standing on 27.08.2009 and today that crop is not in existence. Police aid is sought to remove the subsequent crop and the trial Court has after appreciating the controversy correctly granted police aid. It is urged that as there is no jurisdictional error or perversity, this Court should not interfere in the matters. 9. In reply Mrs. Kulkarni has pointed out that alleged clandestine removal of crop by petitioners or then filing of any criminal complaint or the alleged acceptance of respondents' possession by the petitioners is not on record. She further states that even revenue records showing alleged possession are not produced and the application for grant of police aid as filed does not show that the police aid was sought for harvesting some other crop. According to learned counsel as material factors are overlooked by the appellate Court, the judgment delivered in Misc. 6 wp1958.11 Civil Application granting temporary injunction to respondents and order of trial Court granting police aid to her, are unsustainable. 10. The fact that orders are passed in proceedings under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code for determination of means profit is not in dispute. Those orders are questioned by the petitioners in First Appeal Stamp No. 10226 of 2010. Perusal of orders dated 25.10.2010 passed by this Court on Civil Application no. 14538 of 2010 reveals that the amount of Rs. 3,19,507/- is stated to have been recovered by the respondent in that appeal. This Court has then directed the present petitioners (applicants therein) to deposit an amount of Rs. 3 Lacs by 02.12.2010. The amount has accordingly been deposited. Perusal of the orders dated 10.09.2009 passed by the additional commissioner, Aurangabad reveal that the appeal was registered on that day and the grievance about partition not being equitable was then noted. Notice was issued to other side and ad-interim stay has been given to impugned order therein. Ad-interim stay was to operate till the other side was heard. The matter was then adjourned to 26.10.2009. 11. Thus, these orders of stay are passed by Commissioner on 10.09.2009. The alleged possession receipt dated 27.08.2009 shows visit to the spot by Circle Officer with panchas and the determination of price of sugar cane then standing at the above land at Rs. 6,50,000/-. The respondent-decree holder was then asked whether she was ready and willing to deposit that price and infront of panchas her representative Mahadeo accepted to do so. After recording this consent, the panchanama mentions that decree was executed as per distribution chart and the sketch map 7 wp1958.11 on 27.08.2009 by handing over possession of gut nos. 169 and 174 to respondent. Thereafter, panchanama states that after plaintiff-decree holder deposited the price of sugar cane, separate possession receipt would be executed. This panchanama is then followed by communication dated 29.08.2009 addressed to Tahsildar which again mentions that possession has been delivered. 12. Panchanama therefore shows that cost of sugar cane then standing was worked out at Rs. 6,50,000/-. The finding recorded by the appellate Court nowhere shows that the said crop was still available in those fields. The finding of trial Court in order to granting police aid to respondent-plaintiff also does not reveal any such finding. 13. The respondent-plaintiff has moved application at Exhibit-11 in Misc. Application no.281 of 2010 on 10.12.2010 for grant of police aid. She has contended that sugar cane crop in gut nos. 169 and 174 needs harvesting and because of previous experience she apprehended danger to life and property. She has mentioned that she had taken possession on 27.08.2009 and has filed criminal complaint against the present petitioner for theft of sugar cane crops. It is obvious that sugar cane crop mentioned in panchanama on 27.08.2009 and sugar cane crop mentioned in application dated 10.12.2010 is not the same. 14. Perusal of the judgment of this Court reported at "1995(1)Mh.L.J. 529 ( Ratnabai Narayanrao Naik and another V/s Satwarao Narayanrao Naik) shows that ordinarily the decree holder or party who obtained the injunction order would not need 8 wp1958.11 any police aid for execution of his decree or injunction. It is apparent that view taken therein or test prescribed therein are not of universal application and facts in each matters need to be verified while finding out whether such police aid needs to be granted or not. 15. Perusal of the judgment reported at "2007(6)Bom.C.R. 48" ( Mahadu Narayan Pawar deceased through his legal heirs and ors V/s Additional Commissioner and ors) shows that the decree for partition and separate possession was modified by High Court in First Appeal and in execution proceedings before the Collector objection was that the precept was not being implemented as per those modified directions. The appeal before the additional commissioner was filed and the objectors contended that collector was proceeding with undue haste without looking into their grievance. This Court has found, that grievance was going to the root of the matter and the matter was therefore remanded back to Collector by the appellate authority namely the Additional Commissioner. That order was challenged. This Court noticed that Additional Commissioner has remanded matter on the grounds germen in execution proceedings and had not travelled beyond or behind the decree. 16. Here, the revenue authorities visited the spot on 27.08.2009 and the appellate order by Additional Commissioner granting interim stay is passed on 10.09.2009. i.e. about 13 to 14 days thereafter. Not only this but in Order 20 Rule 12 proceedings, there is direction against the petitioner though that determination has been stayed by this Court on 25.10.2010. 9 wp1958.11 17. The petitioner has not come with specific case before this Court that crop then standing on 27.08.2009 has been removed by the respondent without paying Rs. 6,50,000/- or then that crop is still standing in suit fields. The effort is only to press into service the later part of panchanama which stipulates that after the price of sugar cane is paid separate possession receipt would be executed. If the petitioner continued in possession, the petitioner could have produce on record some other material to substantiate it. 18. The objection on the ground that partition is not equitable is being looked into by the Additional Commissioner and that contention is not relevant at this stage. It is obvious that the said partition and handing over of possession is therefore subject to adjudication of that grievance by the Additional Commissioner. The Court of District Judge-1, Osmanabad has looked into all relevant factors while passing judgment on 03.07.2010 and I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. 19. Similarly, the relevant history has been very briefly mentioned in application Exhibit 11 by the present petitioner before the trial Court in Misc. Application no. 281 of 2010. The trial Court has looked into it and found it necessary to grant police aid. The said finding can not be said to be either erroneous or perverse. 20. I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity, hence the Petitions are dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp1958.11