Land Dispute in Mouza Sirsi: High Court Dismisses Second Appeal

A legal battle over a land dispute in Mouza Sirsi has reached its conclusion as the High Court dismisses the second appeal. The civil court’s ruling in favor of the original decision remains unchanged, bringing an end to the longstanding conflict between the parties involved.

Facts

The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Respondent seeking to restrain them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land.
The trial court dismissed the appellant’s suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the decision.
The High Court, in the second appeal, dismissed the appeal on the ground that no substantial question of law was raised.
The dispute between the parties pertained to agricultural land in Mouza Sirsi.
The plaintiffs filed an application before the S.D.O. in Umrer to get the field re-measured as per the old record.
A re-survey done in 1991 showed that the defendant’s land was 5.3 hectares, exceeding by 1.07 hectares.
Plaintiffs’ field area and maps were corrected in the revenue record.
Plaintiffs claimed that the defendant encroached on their land by erecting wire-fencing.
Civil Judge decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs on 03.01.2005, granting them possession of the disputed land.
Defendant appealed the S.D.O.’s order to the Settlement Commissioner, who remanded the case for a fresh inquiry and decision.
The S.D.O. directed the Taluka Land Inspector to correct the revenue record, restoring the original position of the field.
Defendant’s appeal against this order was dismissed by the District and Sessions Judge on 03.05.2008.
Appellant filed a second appeal, which was also dismissed by the High Court on 28.01.2009.

Also Read: Enforcement of Foreign Award: Case of Oscar Investments Limited and RHC Holding Private Limited

Analysis

The map in question was prepared by the Revenue authorities and not by the plaintiffs/respondents.
The map was prepared on the directions of the S.D.O. and holds evidentiary value despite subsequent order reversals.
Civil courts have consistently found that the defendant encroached upon the land of the plaintiffs.
The defendant’s explanation that land was exchanged with relatives to straighten the boundary lacks substantial evidence.
The argument that the suit is not maintainable under Section 138 of The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was deemed without merit.
The objection that the plaintiffs have not proved the map lacks merit as well.
No substantial evidence was presented to prove the existence of boundaries with trees between the two fields.
The claim that boundaries contained trees and were replaced with a fence was not supported by evidence on record.
No provision in the law specifically bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in this case.
The civil court’s jurisdiction has not been excluded in any specific way.
Thus, the civil court can exercise its jurisdiction in this matter.