Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court: Businessman Reclaims Land Prematurely, Faces Legal Setback

Updated
Dec 8, 2025 7:09 PM
bombay-high-court-businessman-reclaims-land-prematurely-faces-legal-setback

Summary: In a property possession case from Khamgaon, the Bombay High Court ruled against Amol Deshpande, who tried to reclaim his land without following proper legal steps. The court emphasized the need to follow legal processes.

The Case Begins: Amol vs. Suresh

Amol Subashrao Deshpande, a businessman from Khamgaon, filed a lawsuit against Suresh Indal Chavan, claiming Suresh was illegally using his property. The dispute was over a 25.50 square meter section of a 170 square meter plot in Khamgaon, Buldana.

Court Ruling: December 2024

On December 23, 2024, the court decided in favor of Amol, ordering Suresh to leave the disputed land. Amol was also given a court order to stop Suresh from causing more trouble.

Taking Matters into His Own Hands: May 2025

Despite the court's decision, Amol took control of the property on May 3, 2025, with police help, without officially asking the court to carry out the decision. This happened before he knew about Suresh's appeal against the judgment.

Legal Battle Continues: Appeal and Restoration

Suresh filed an appeal and asked to get the property back, arguing that Amol's actions were illegal since no official court process was started. On May 21, 2025, the higher court ordered that the property be returned to Suresh.

Arguments from Both Sides

  • Amol's Stand: His lawyer, Shri P.S. Tiwari, argued that without a pause on the court's decision, Amol had the right to take back his property. He mentioned previous court decisions that supported his right to enjoy the decision's benefits immediately.

  • Suresh's Defense: Represented by Shri A.R. Wagh, Suresh argued that Amol's actions were not lawful. He emphasized the need to start official court processes according to legal rules.

Court's Decision: November 2025

Judge Prafulla S. Khubalkar decided that Amol's actions were not lawful. The court stressed that legal steps must be followed to carry out a court decision. The request to overturn the higher court's decision was dismissed, reinforcing the need to follow legal rules.

Tags:
Property Rights
Eviction
Civil Procedure