Lokmat News Network
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar:
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice Kishor Sant and Justice Sushil Ghodeswar, has dismissed a petition after it was found that the petitioner had misled the court by presenting an impression that only part of a land parcel had been sold, whereas the entire land had in fact been sold. Taking serious note of the misrepresentation, the court, on Wednesday, also imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner for filing the petition on false grounds.
The bench directed that the cost amount be distributed as follows: Rs 30,000 each to the district collector’s office, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), and the High Court registry, and Rs 10,000 to the crèche/day-care centre within the High Court premises. The court also appreciated the efforts of officials who conducted a detailed examination of old sale records and brought the true facts before it.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Sharadchandra Gopaldas Shroff, had filed the petition in 2014 claiming ownership of 40 R of land in Gut No. 10 at Pandharpur (Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district), purchased in 1973. He stated that he had sold 20 R to Ashok Aamladi in 1975 and retained possession of the remaining 20 R, which he alleged was later acquired by MIDC without proper notice or compensation.
However, during the proceedings, discrepancies emerged due to missing old records. A detailed investigation by revenue officials and MIDC revealed that the petitioner had, in fact, sold the entire land through a sale deed dated March 13, 1975 to Ashok Aamladi. An affidavit revealing the said fact was submitted in March 2026.
The court observed that most of the reliefs sought fell within the jurisdiction of Civil Court and could not be entertained under the petition. It further held that the petitioner failed to produce credible evidence of ownership or possession, and therefore denied any relief.
Senior advocate Nandkumar Khandare appeared for the petitioner, while R P Gaur represented the government. MIDC was represented by Adv.Shrirang Dande, and other respondents were represented by advocates S R Deshpande and S M Gunjkar.