Summary: A long-standing land division case involving Milind Dada Kale, Nalini Arun Tejale, and various developers reached a significant decision in the Bombay High Court. The court addressed the legality of the division and ownership of lands in Nashik, a dispute that has persisted for over 75 years.
The case revolves around a division lawsuit started in 1949 by Milind Dada Kale and others, descendants of Late Ragho, for lands in Nashik. The lands in question were Survey No.80/3 and Survey No.867. The Civil Judge initially ruled in favor of Milind Dada Kale, granting him ownership and division rights.
Nalini Arun Tejale appealed in 1951, leading to an agreement that changed Milind Dada Kale's share from one-third to one-fourth in certain lands. This decision required the Collector to carry out the division, which was delayed for decades.
The Collector's job was to divide the lands according to the court's decision. However, mistakes in the division chart led to more disputes. Specifically, Milind Dada Kale received more land than he was supposed to, causing arguments.
"Milind Dada Kale was entitled to an area of 1H 75R but was allotted 2H 66R," noted the court.
Over the years, builders like M/s. Thakker Developers bought parts of the land, making the situation more complicated. They faced issues because their names were removed from land records after the disputed division.
The Bombay High Court, led by Judge N.J. Jamadar, ruled that the division of Survey No.80/3 was not the Collector's job, as it was to be given entirely to Milind Dada Kale. The court ordered the restoration of records for Survey No.80/3 to match the original decision.
The court's decision stressed the correct execution of the decision, directing the Collector to divide only Survey No.867/1 and 867/2 according to the original terms.
This judgment marks a pivotal moment in a case that spanned generations, highlighting the complexities of land disputes and the importance of adhering to legal decisions. The decision aims to restore justice and clarity, allowing the rightful owners to claim their shares.
"The powers of the High Court under its writ jurisdiction are extensive," stated the court, underscoring its commitment to justice.
This resolution shows the long-lasting nature of legal battles and the eventual triumph of clarity and fairness in the judicial process.
