Summary: The Bombay High Court overturned a decision by the local official, known as the Tahsildar, in Pachora regarding a land possession dispute between Ramdas and Sakharam Patil and Rahul Shimpi. The court emphasized that such matters should be handled by civil courts.
Ramdas and Sakharam Patil, both farmers from Jalgaon, found themselves in a legal battle over land possession with Rahul Shimpi. Shimpi claimed that the Patils had taken over his land without permission. This prompted him to file a request with the authorities.
The local official of Pachora, using a section of the law meant for criminal cases, issued an order against the Patils. This decision was made while a civil case about the same land was still ongoing. The Patils argued that they legally bought the land in 1995 and had the paperwork to prove it.
Judge Sachin S. Deshmukh stated that when a civil case is ongoing, the local official should not get involved in matters of possession. He emphasized:
"The local official has acted beyond his authority while giving the order to restore possession and issue an injunction."
The court referred to past cases, like the Ram Sumer Puri Mahant vs. State of U.P., to underline that civil courts have the main authority in land possession issues. The court also cited the Ayodhya case, reinforcing that civil courts are best suited to decide on such matters.
The High Court canceled the local official's order, stating:
"The order made by the local official is clearly not valid."
The case was ruled in favor of the Patils, emphasizing that civil courts should handle disputes of this nature to avoid overlapping legal proceedings.
