Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court: Khonde Family Wins Back 2.33-Acre Land in Nagpur Dispute

Updated
Sep 25, 2025 4:49 PM
News Image

Summary: In a long-running land dispute, the Bombay High Court at Nagpur decided in favor of the original owners, the Khonde family, over a 2.33-acre property. The court looked into issues of ownership, sale documents, and legal details, ultimately allowing the Khondes to take back their family land.

Who Was Involved

The case was between M/s. Prembrothers Infrastructure LLP and M/s. DJ Sons Hospitality, represented by Mr. Ashok Agrawal, and the Khonde family, including Narendra, Durgabai, and Usha Khonde. The Khondes were fighting for their rights to a piece of land in Mohgaon, Nagpur.

The Land in Question

The disputed property is a 2.33-acre piece of land, part of Survey No.67 in Nagpur. This land was originally sold by Shyamrao Khonde to Narayan and Maroti Khonde through sale documents in 1975 and 1982.

The Start of the Legal Fight

In 1988, the Khonde family filed a case to divide and take control of the land, arguing against the sale documents. The trial court sided with them in 1991, saying the 1982 sale document was not valid and recognizing the land as family property.

"The land in question is family property in which the respondent Nos.1 to 3 also had a share."

Appeals and Court Orders

Narayan and Maroti Khonde challenged the decision, but their appeal was rejected in 2005. The Khondes then tried to enforce the court's order in 2014, leading to more legal issues over who should have the land.

The Role of SARFAESI Act

The land was sold multiple times and was eventually auctioned under the SARFAESI Act because of a loan default. M/s. Prembrothers Infrastructure LLP bought it in 2021, not knowing about the ongoing dispute.

Court's Decision on Timing

The court looked into whether the request to enforce the court's order was made on time. The petitioners claimed it was too late, but the court found it was still valid, as no pause was granted during the appeal.

Intervention and Previous Decisions

The court rejected the petitioners' attempt to intervene, noting that earlier objections to the timing had been dismissed. The rule of not re-arguing settled issues stopped this from being argued again.

"The order rejecting objection filed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 will operate as res judicata."

Final Verdict

The court confirmed the Khonde family's right to the land, allowing them to take back control. The petitioners were advised to look for other legal options if they wanted to.

This case shows how complicated land disputes can be and the importance of knowing your rights and limits in property deals.