IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.898 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.898 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.898 OF 2008 IN IN IN SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO. 310 OF 1993 APPEAL NO. 310 OF 1993 APPEAL NO. 310 OF 1993 G.R. Nazirkar ... Applicant Vs. The BDO/ Panchayat Samittee ... Respondents Sudhagad, Pali Mr. Ganesh R. Nazirkar present in person. Mr. C.G. Gavnekar for respondents CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J : R.S. MOHITE, J : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE DATE DATE : 4TH JULY, 2008 : 4TH JULY, 2008 : 4TH JULY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. :- :- :- 1. The applicant is appearing in person. In the Civil Application, he makes a number of prayers which are beyond the scope of the dispute in the Second Appeal, which was disposed of by this Court on 18/1/1994. It appears that the present applicant won the litigation upto High Court and had a decree in his favour by which, the defendants were directed to remove an encroachment made by them on part of Survey No.2, which was admeasuring 52 R. 2. It is mentioned in the plaint that the encroachment was made on about 60 gunthas. It 2 appears that thereafter the Land Acquisition proceedings were concluded in respect of area of 2165 sq. mtrs. This Court confirmed the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer and the compensation of Rs.3,36,104/- has fixed in the said Award. It appears that an amount of Rs.4.00 Lacs was deposited as per the order of this Court and since in the Land Acquisition proceeding, this Court confirmed the acquisition to the area of 2165, the balance amount was directed to be refunded. In the circumstances, the applicant made a refund and has received only an amount of Rs.3,36,104/- in lieu of area of 2165 sq. mtrs. It appears to be the contention of the applicant that the decree covered an encroachment of larger area of land. If this be so, then his proper remedy was to file Darkhast for execution of decree dated 10/4/1992. It appears that darkhast proceeding No.17 of 1992 came to be filed. The applicant contends that the same was disposed of on 2/2/1996 by an order of Alibaug Court. The applicant states he had challenged this order dated 2/2/1996. His proper remedy will be to pursue the line of litigation arising from the order passed in Execution Proceeding dated 2/2/1996 and if the execution was held to be premature or disposed of for technical 3 reasons to consider the possibility of filing fresh execution proceeding in accordance with law. The vague prayers of the nature which are mentioned cannot be granted. Hence, Civil Application stands disposed of with liberty to the applicant to pursue his remedies, as aforesaid. ( R.S. MOHITE, J.) R.S. MOHITE, J.) R.S. MOHITE, J.)