1 W.P.No.3789/94 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3789 OF 1994. Shashikalabai W/o Shrirang Shinde, (deceased through her legal representative - Chandrakalabai W/o Manik Wagh, Age major, Occ.Agri., R/o Pimpri Wagh, Taluka Pathri, Dist.Parbhani. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) Beed, Tq. and Dist. Beed. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 4. Shrirang S/o Venkoba Shinde } W.P.stands Age 46 years, Occ.Agri., } abated as R/o Laul, Taluka Majalgaon, } against R-4. Dist.Beed. } ... Mr.V.D.Salunke, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.P.Phatke, Addl. Govt.Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. ... 2 W.P.No.3789/94 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 03.08.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner impugns the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, holding that the land allotted to six persons, be maintained and distribution of the land of the petitioner be done. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had taken customary divorce from Respondent No.4 and in lieu of maintenance she was given land S.No.43-A to the extent of 3 acres 22 gunthas, S.No.58 to the extent of 6 acres 12 gunthas, S.No.153 to the extent of 5 acres 30 gunthas and S.No.155 to the extent of 6 acres i.e. total 21 acres 26 gunthas. The petitioner further purchased S.No.154 to the extent of 5 acres 19 gunthas vide registered sale deed. 3 W.P.No.3789/94 According to the learned counsel, the said land could not have been clubbed in holding of Respondent No.4 and if Respondent No.4 is declared as a surplus land holder then still, the land which is given in lieu of maintenance to the petitioner can not be declared as surplus and can not be available for distribution. 4. Mr.Salunke, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities can not question the case of the petitioner in view of the decision of the competent Civil Court in RCS No.456/1985, whereby the competent Civil Court has clamped perpetual injunction against the Respondents from delimiting and distributing the suit lands as surplus. In light of the same, the State Government could not have passed any order with regard to the said lands. According to the learned counsel when these lands are separate lands of the petitioner, the Respondents committed an error in stating that the said land is available for distribution. 5. Mr.Phatke, learned Addl.Govt. Pleader 4 W.P.No.3789/94 supports the order and submits that the Sub- Divisional Officer has properly considered all the aspects of the case and has passed the impugned order. 6. The Civil Court has passed a decree against the present Respondents. The injunction clamped by the Civil Court in RCS No.456/1985 reads as under : "I) The plaintiffs this suit against the defendants is hereby decreed and the plaintiff is declared as owner and possessor of the suit land as described in para No.1 of the plaint. II) The defendants No.1 and 2 and its officials are hereby restrained from delimiting and distributing the suit land being surplus. III) It is further ordered that the defendants bear the costs of this suit of the plaintiff in addition to their own. 5 W.P.No.3789/94 IV) A decree be drawn accordingly." In view of the finding of the Civil Court, now it is not open for any of the parties to contend otherwise. There is nothing on record to show that the said judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court dated 28.1.1988 in RCS No.456/1985 is challenged at any material point of time. The same has become final. The parties would be governed by the said decree. 7. In view of the decree of a competent Civil Court, it is now not open for the Respondents to contend that the land held by the petitioner as detailed in para 2 of the Writ Petition is available for delimitation and distribution as a surplus land holding of the Respondent NO.4. 8. In view of the above, it will have to be held that the lands held by the petitioners can not be a subject matter of declaration of a surplus land and the same is not available for 6 W.P.No.3789/94 delimitation and distribution. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. It is held that the Respondents shall not delimit and distribute the land of the petitioner as detailed in para 2 of the petition nor the said land is available for allotment as detailed in para 2 of the Writ Petition. 10. Rule is made absolute in above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp378994