IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE MANGAON

AT MANGAON
Civil Appeal ----/2023

In

(R. C.S. No. 74/2017)

MR. MAHENDRA BHALCHANDRA PISAT, )

Age – 66, Occ. Service, )
R/at :- Goregaon, Tal. Mangaon , )
Dist. Raigad ) …Appellant
(Original Respondent)
V/s
MR. RAJENDRA DAMODAR SHIRGAONKAR
Age – 66, Occ. Service, )
R/at :- Sayog Nagaar, Goregaon, )
Chichavali,Tal. Mangaon , )
Dist. Raigad ) Respondents

Application on behalf of Appellant for issuance of summons to respondent

no. 3 to 8 by hand delivery through Navi Mumbai court.
The appellant submits as under :-
In the caption matter the appellant has mistakenly not written the address
in the title of the appeal and copy of one set is also insufficient therefore
kamgiri of summons is not made and returned to the court. Therefore this
appellant desires to provide the address of respondent no. 3 to 8 are as
under:-
1) Shri. Machindranath Laxman Mhatre
2) Shri. Meghnath Machindranath Mhatre
3) Shri. Subhash Machindranath Mhatre
4) Smt. Shalinibai Machindranath Mhatre
 5) Shri. Ghanshyam Machindranath Mhatre
Respondent no. 3 to 7 are R/at :- post Ghansoli,
Tal. Dist.Thane, Navi Mumbai

6) CIDCO
Chief Land & Survey Officer
1st Floor, CIDCO Bhavan,
CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai
The concern parties are residing within the Jurisdiction of Navi Mumbai
court therefore it is necessary to issue summons to them through Navi
Mumbai court for fast process. Hence application may be allowed.
It is therefore prayed that :-
a) Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow issuance of summons &
notices to the respondent no. 3 to 8 by hand delivery through Navi
Mumbai at the address mentioned in this application.
b) Any other further order may be passed in favour of appellant

Place :- Thane
Date :- 13/10/2016 Adv. For appellant
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE THANE
AT THANE
Civil Appeal 235/2016

In

(Spl. C.S. No. 503/2012)

Shri. Jalindernath Laxman Mhatre ) …Appellant

(Original Plaintiff)
V/s

State of Maharashtra )
Through Collector Thane )
& others )…Respondents
(original defendants)

Application on behalf of appellant to take

the matter on today’s board.

The appellant submits as under :-

In the caption matter by mistakenly the address of respondents are not
mentioned in the title therefore the Kamgiri of summons is not made and
returned to the concern court. However this appellant desire to issue
summons to the concerned parties and desire to supply the address and
supply the copy of one set therefore matter may be taken on today’s board.
If it is not allowed then harm would be caused to appellant not to
respondents. In the interest of Justice application may be allowed.
It is therefore prayed that :-
a) Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the application and matter
may be taken on today’s board.

b) Any other further order may be passed in favour of appellant.

Place :- Thane
Date :- 13/10/2016 Adv. For appellant.
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE THANE
AT THANE
Civil Appeal ----/2016

In

(Spl. C.S. No. 503/2012)

Shri. Jalindernath Laxman Mhatre )

Age – adult, Occ. Service )
Through its Power of Attorney Holder )
Shri. Atish Jalindernath Mhatre )
Age :- 36 yrs., Occ. Service, )
R/at :- Ghansoli, Thane Belapur Road, )
Tal. Dist. Thane, Navi Mumbai )…Appellant
(original Plaintiff)
V/s
1) State of Maharashtra )
Through Collector of Thane )
Having its office at :- Collector Campus)
Thane, )
2) Special Land Acquisition Officer )
Metro Center No. Thane III )
Having its office at :- 3rd Floor, )
Collector office building, Thane )
3) Shri. Machindranath Laxman Mhatre )
Age - ----, Occ. -------------- )
4) Shri. Meghnath Machindranath Mhatre)
Age - ----, Occ. -------------- )
 5) Shri. Subhash Machindranath Mhatre )
Age - ----, Occ. -------------- )
6) Smt. Shalinibai Machindranath Mhatre)
Age - ----, Occ. Housewife )
7) Shri. Ghanshyam Machindranath Mhatre)
Age - ----, Occ. -------------- )
No. 3 to 7 are R/at :- Ghansoli, )
Tal. Dist. Thane, Navi Mumbai )
8) CIDCO )
Chief Land & Survey Officer )
1st Floor, CIDCO Bhavan, )
CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai )…Respondents
(Original Defendants)
INJUNCTION APPLICATION FILED
BY APPELLANT U/O 39 RULE 1 & 2
READ WITH SEC 151 OF CPC.
The appellant submits as under :-
1) The appellant states that, he is the son of Late Laxman Nathu Mhatre
alongwith respondent no. 3, i.e. appellant & respondent no. 3, are
real brother of each other and respondent no. 4,5, & 7 are son of
respondent no. 3 & 6 and respondent no. 6 is wife of respondent no.
3. The father of the appellant and respondent no. 3, is died 17-18
years before 1973. The said father was the tenant of the land bearing
its Gat no. 212, adm. About 8-5-00, situated at Ghansoli, Tal. Dist.
Thane, and said land originally owned by Nargis Mankoji Modi &
others. The said land is acquired by respondent no. 8, CIDCO under
land acquisition act, and part compensation in respect of the same is
wrongly paid to respondent no. 3 to 7 by respondent no. 1 & 2. In
lieu of acquired land, CIDCO desires to allot the alternate
 accommodation to land affected person under 12.5% scheme framed
by respondent no. 1.

2) The appellant further submits that, during the pendency of the suit,
the respondent no. 8 CIDCO has intention to allot plot of land
bearing its plot no. 37,12,57,36,35 adm. About 1300 sq. mtr. 500 sq.
mtr., 350 sq. mtr., 350 sq. mtr.,88.961 sq. mtr. respectively at Sector
36, 37, 37, 39, 40 at Ghansoli, Tal. Dist. Thane, Navi Mumbai in
lieu of acquired land bearing its Gat no. 212, as stated hereinabove
(hereinafter referred to as a “Suit Property”). The CIDCO has
intended to allot said suit property on 24/2/2009 and 18/2/2010. In
view of the intending letter, the CIDCO, desires to allot the said plot
of land and execute Lease Agreement, kararnama, which are not
done by them uptill now.

3) The appellant further submits that, the appellant & respondent no. 3,
are the son of Late Laxman Nathu Mhatre, and their name is also
incorporated in the revenue record by virtue of Mutation Entry no.
2107, on 21/8/1973. There are also certain property wherein the
name of appellant & respondent no. 3, are jointly appeared /
incorporated in the revenue record except Gat no. 212.

4) The appellant further states that, after acquiring the aforesaid land,
the respondent no. 1 & 2 have passed the award bearing its Case no.
134, Award no. 201, dated 1/8/1986. And further as per the court
order awarded amount has been enhanced on 31/3/1995 in view of
reference court joint District Judge Thane, in reference no. 18/1995,
& 17/1995.
5) The appellant further submits that, after passing the award by
respondent no.1 & 2, the respondent no. 3, is dissatisfied with the
amount of Rs. 57,728.70/- eventually respondent no. 3 to 7, referred
land reference bearing 18/1995 & 17/1995, in thane court. After
disposing the said LAR, the court directed to pay enhance amount to
respondent no. 3 to 7 at Rs. 2,01,838/- in addition to that interest
thereon which is arrived at Rs. 3,99,630/- and solatium amount as
per order dated 15/10/1998. After calculating the amount in respect
of the said Gat No.212, total amount which comes to Rs.
16,22,648.70/- and out of that, ½ amount i.e. Rs. 8,11,324.35/- is yet
to be paid to appellant by respective respondents, because the
respondent no. 3 to 7 are not only legal heir of Late Laxman Nathu
Mhatre but appellant is also one of the legal heir of the said deceased
father therefore, he is also entitled for ½ share in compensation
amount as well as alternate accommodation as the property belongs
to Joint Family Property wherein appellant has equal rights in the
suit property.

6) The appellant further submits that, in view of Mutation Entry no.

2107, the name of appellant and respondent no. 3 are incorporated in
the revenue record in respect of other property however, the name of
the appellant is remained to be incorporated in the revenue record in
respect of suit property similarly to that of Mutation Entry no. 2107.

7) The appellant further submits that, the respondent no. 3, has

inherited its right, title, share, interest, etc., in the suit property from
Late Laxman Nathu Mhatre, his name is also incorporated in the
7/12 extract as a tenant of the suit property since long back. The
respondent no. 3, being the legal heir of Late Laxman Nathu Mhatre,
has initiated the tenancy proceeding against the original land lord
 bearing its Tenancy Case no. 27/72 wherein tenancy court passed the
order on 29/3/1976. After passing the order the respondent no. 3, had
filed the tenancy application no. 1/79, dated 22/12/1979, whereby
the respondent no.3 has incorporated its own name in view of 70B
proceeding. It is further added that, the father of the appellant &
respondent no. 3, was the tenant and was cultivating the land since
1950-51 onwards at that time, the appellant & respondent no. 3,
were minor and they were maintained & brought up by their Cousin
Brother namely Anant Bama Mhatre. The mother namely Fugibai
had left her matrimonial home, keeping two minor son in the
custody of Anant Bama Mhatre, thereafter she got the another
marriage with stranger, thereby constrained to Anant Bama Mhatre
to nurture the appellant & respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 3, is
educated, knowledgeable and elder brother of the appellant who was
looking after the administration & affairs of Joint family business
left by their father & mother. Even if the suit property stands in the
name of Respondent no.3, the appellant have also got equal right,
and accordingly appellant had send notice to respondent no. 3, on
12/8/1996. Till the appellant and respondent no. 3 are become major
they were nurtured by their cousin brother Anant Bama Mhatre and
after becoming the major, the respondent no. 3, was looking after the
affair & administration of said land, as karta of Joint family.

8) The appellant further states that, the respondent no. 3 illegally,

unlawfully, incorporated the name of respondent no. 4 to 7 in the
7/12 extract in view of Mutation Entry no. 2339, without informing
to appellant that to without including the name of appellant. In fact,
4 to 7 are not the owner, nor have their share in the suit property and
according to Hindu Law it should be first partitioned amongst the
appellant & respondent no. 3 in equal share. The respondent no. 3 to
 7 Jointly & severally played fraud upon respondent no. 1 & 2
including Joint District Court Thane, believing them, that respondent
no. 3 to 7 are only the owner of the suit property and passed the
award on 15/10/1998 to that effect.

9) The appellant had also issued, notice dated 23/3/2001 to respondent

no. 3, for want of share, in movable & immovable property, despite
of it, the respondent no. 3, refused to give the share to appellant,
eventually did not give any reply to that effect immediately.

10) In view of case no. 27/72 and 1/79, respectively dated

29/3/1976 & 22/12/1979, the appellant had preferred the revision
application dated 16/10/2001 before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
Bombay, however at that time the tribunal was dissolved and matter
was referred to Kokan Commissioner. Moreover the said
commissioner did not take any decision constraining appellant to file
present Civil Suit in the lower court.

11) The appellant further submits that, the appellant no. 1 & 2 are
acquiring body who has not issued any notices pertaining to
acquisition proceeding to present appellant. Respondent no. 1 & 2
have acquired the suit land to respondent no. 8, CIDCO, who allots
Gaonthan Plot, in lieu of acquired land according to 12.5% scheme.
The CIDCO respondent no. 8 desires to allot the plot of land to
respondent no. 3 to 6, though the property belonged to and inherited
by respondent no. 3, from its father namely Laxman Nathu Mhatre
wherein, the appellant has also equal right, title, share, interest etc in
compensation as well as allotment of plot. Therefore, the appellant
had issued the notice dated 25/5/2001 for want of share therein,
 which are not complied by the respective respondents, constraining
appellant to file the present suit before lower court.

12) The appellant further submits that, CIDCO is allotting

authority they may allot the plot, they may allot the suit property or
may execute the lease agreement or tri-party agreement or otherwise
the respondent no. 3 to 7 may jointly construct the multi-storied
building or may create the third party interest or may transfer by any
means, with the help of the officer of the respondent no. 8, thereby
the rights of the appellant would be deprived at the instance of the
respondent therefore it is required to be protected by way of passing
permanent & temporary injunction order. It is further added that, the
respondent no. 8, CIDCO has also published the public notice, dated
4/10/2016 wherein CIDCO has told to respondent no. 3 to 7 to
comply the requirement for allotment of plot. Once the third party
rights are created, same cannot be compensated in terms of money &
rights of appellant would be deprived by respondents.

13) The appellant further submits that, the property belongs to its
father, who was the tenant of the suit property and rights of his
father is also inherited by the respondent no. 3 thereafter 4 to 7
wherein appellant has also got equal right, title, share, interest.

14) Prima facie case is in favour of the appellant and not in favour
of the respondents, and balance of convenience is also in favour of
the appellant and irreparable loss would be caused to appellant if
injunction order has not been passed in its favour. The rights of the
appellant cannot be compensated in terms of money if the injunction
application has been dismissed. In the interest of Justice the
 Injunction order may be passed in favour of the appellant and no
harm would be caused to respondents if the injunction application is
allowed.

15) Cause of action for filing of this application is arisen on

------------------------- when the order of status quo is not extended
same is continue till filing of the present application till the disposal
of the suit.

16) This Hon’ble Court has Jurisdiction to entertain, try & dispose
of this application according to law.

17) The court fee stamp of Rs. 10/- is affixed herewith.

18) No similar application has been filed neither in this nor any
other court and nothing is pending in respect thereof.

It is therefore prayed that :-

a) Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant the temporary injunction

order against respondent no. 1 to 7, (including its agent, servant,
contractor, officer etc) restraining them from obtaining the
compensation and plot of land and creating the third party interest or
developing the suit property of any nature, till the disposal of the
Civil Appeal.

b) Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant temporary injunction order

restraining respondent no. 8 CIDCO (including its agent, servant,
contractor, officer etc), from allotting plot of land or executing any
 lease agreement or tri-party agreement or transferring the suit plot
with anyone else’s name till the disposal of the appeal.

c) Any other further order may be passed in favour of appellant though

specifically not sought for, according to the changing circumstances
which may deem fits & proper.

d) Cost of the application may be awarded.

Place :- Mangaon
Date :- ----------------------- Mr. Mahendra Bhalchandra Pisat
Appellant.

Adv. For appellant

VERIFICATION
I Mr. Mahendra Bhalchandra Pisat, Age – 66 yrs, Occ. Service Age –
R/at :- Goregaon, Tal. Mangaon, Dist. Raigad, do hereby state on solemn
affirmation that, whatever stated herein above is true & correct to the best
of my knowledge & belief and no part of this affidavit is false.

Solemnly affirmed at Thane, dated :- --/--/2016

Place :- Mangaon
Date :- --/--/2023 Mr. Mahendra Bhalchandra Pisat
Appellant

Adv. For Appellant

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE THANE
AT THANE
Civil Appeal ----/2016

In

(Spl. C.S. No. 503/2012)

Shri. Jalindernath Laxman Mhatre )

Through its Power of Attorney Holder )
Shri. Atish Jalindernath Mhatre )…Appellant
(original Plaintiff)
V/s
State of Maharashtra )
Through Collector Thane )
& others )…Respondents

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF INJUNCTION APPLICATION

I Shri. Atish Jalinder Mhatre, Age – 36 yrs, Occ. Service, R/at :- House
No. 1536, Ghansoli, Tal. Dist. Thane, Navi Mumbai, do hereby state on
solemn affirmation that,
1) I say that I am filing an injunction application as on date.

2) I say that in order to avoid repetition all the contentions and

averments made in the said suit, it may be deemed to form & part of
this affidavit.

3) I say that I am swearing this affidavit in support of the Injunction

application.
whatever stated herein above is true & correct to the best of my knowledge
& belief & nothing is conceal therein.

Solemnly affirmed at Thane on -----------------

Place :- Thane
Date :- --/---/2016 Shri. Atish Jalindernath Mhatre
POA holder for appellant

Adv. For appellant.

VERIFICATION
I Shri. Atish Jalindernath Mhatre, (through Power of Attorney Holder of
Jalindernath Laxman Mhatre) Age – 36 yrs, Occ. Service, R/at :- House
No. 1536, Ghansoli, Tal. Dist. Thane, Navi Mumbai, do hereby state on
solemn affirmation that, whatever stated herein above is true & correct to
the best of my knowledge & belief and no part of this affidavit is false.

Solemnly affirmed at Thane, dated :- --/---/2016

Place :- Thane
Date :- --/----/2016 Shri. Atish Jalindernath Mhatre
POA holder for appellant

Adv. For appellant.

 IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE THANE AT THANE
Civil Appeal No. ……/2016

In

(Spl. C.S. No. 503/2012)

Shri. Jalindernath Laxman Mhatre )

Through its Power of Attorney Holder )
Shri. Atish Jalindernath Mhatre ) … Appellant
(Original Plaintiff)

V/s

State of Maharashtra )
Through Collector Thane )
& Others ) … Respondents
(Original Defendants)

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY APPELLANT

1) Original copy of Index No. II of Document No. TNN3–11269-2018

2) Original copy of Index No. II of Document No. TNN3–11270-2018
3) Original copy of Index No. II of Document No. TNN3–12080-2018
4) Original copy of Index No. II of Document No. TNN3–6656-2018
5) Original copy of Index No. II of Document No. TNN3–6657-2018
6) Original Photocopies (Total 4)

Place :- Thane
Date :- …/01/2019
Adv. for Appellant.
 IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE THANE AT THANE
Civil Appeal No. ……/2016

In

(Spl. C.S. No. 503/2012)

Shri. Jalindernath Laxman Mhatre )

Through its Power of Attorney Holder )
Shri. Atish Jalindernath Mhatre ) … Appellant
(Original Plaintiff)

V/s

State of Maharashtra )
Through Collector Thane )
& Others ) … Respondents
(Original Defendants)

Application on behalf the Applicants above

named for granting permission for filling
documents.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR :-

The above mentioned matter Applicants intend to file certain copies of

necessary documents, which are just and necessary to adjudicate this matter correctly
and properly.

Hence it is respectfully prayed to this Hon’ble court applicants may be

permitted to file the same.

In the interest of Justice Necessary Order in that behalf be passed.

Place :- Thane
Date :- …/01/2019 Adv. for Appellant.
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT
JUDGE THANE AT THANE
Civil Appeal No. ……/2016
In
(Spl. C.S. No. 503/2012)

Shri. Jalindernath Laxman Mhatre

Through its Power of Attorney Holder
Shri. Atish Jalindernath Mhatre
) …Appellant
(Original Plaintiff)

V/s

State of Maharashtra
Through Collector Thane & Others
) …Respondents
(Original Defendants)

DOCKET

Document filed by Appellants

Document No.

Filed in Court at Thane.

Dated : / / 2019