Summary: A long-standing land dispute in Panvel, Raigad, involving the Mhatre and Naik families, took a fresh turn with a recent court decision. The Bombay High Court, under Justice N. J. Jamadar, ruled on multiple requests related to the case, allowing changes to the main complaint and rejecting opposing claims.
The case is about land in Panvel, Raigad. The Mhatres and Naiks are the main families involved. The land was originally owned by Narayan Hari Naik and was later taken over by CIDCO. In return, the families were supposed to get a developed plot under a special plan.
The Naik brothers (Shri. Namdeo Narayan Naik and others) allegedly claimed the land benefits without telling their sisters. This led to various legal battles, including Regular Civil Suit No. 16/2009 and others. CIDCO leased the disputed plots to the Naik brothers, which started a series of transactions and legal challenges.
On December 18, 2023, the Civil Judge in Panvel rejected a request by Alankar Padaji Mhatre and others to remove Defendant No. 5 and the suit plot from the case. The Naik brothers wanted to change their written statement to include a claim against Defendant No. 5, claiming unpaid money.
The Mhatres and Defendant No. 5 reached an agreement, leading to a request to change the suit. However, the Naik brothers opposed this, alleging they were working together secretly. They also wanted to claim over Rs. 1.61 crore from Defendant No. 5, arguing there was a failure to pay.
"The plaintiffs and Defendant No. 5 arrived at an amicable settlement of the dispute and consent terms were executed."
Justice N. J. Jamadar highlighted the right of plaintiffs to drop part of their claim. The court found the claim against Defendant No. 5 to be legally invalid, as it primarily targeted a co-defendant, which isn't allowed under the rules.
On January 6, 2026, the court allowed the Mhatres to change their complaint and remove Defendant No. 5 and the suit plot. The Naik brothers' claim was rejected. Justice Jamadar emphasized that the law doesn't allow a claim against a co-defendant, marking a significant win for the Mhatres.
"The claim against Defendant No. 5 was about enforcing contractual obligations... the plaintiffs were not a party to the said contract."
The Mhatres have three weeks to change their complaint. This ruling simplifies the case, focusing on the main dispute without the distractions of additional claims.
