{"id":262645,"date":"2009-06-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009"},"modified":"2018-01-29T17:17:07","modified_gmt":"2018-01-29T11:47:07","slug":"shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri Ashok Laxman Attarde vs Atmaram Bhanu Saindane on 25 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shri Ashok Laxman Attarde vs Atmaram Bhanu Saindane on 25 June, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: B.R. Gavai<\/div>\n
                                           (1)\n\n                                                      JUDGMENT REPORTED\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n                 AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.\n\n                           Writ Petition No. 365 of 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n    1. Shri Ashok Laxman Attarde,\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n       Age : 57 years,\n       Occupation : Agriculture & Service,\n       R\/o. Plot No. 141\/3\/13,\n       Ayodya Nagar, Jalgaon.\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n    2. Shri Dilip Laxman Attarde,\n       Age : 55 years,\n                         \n       Occupation : Agriculture & Service,\n       R\/o. E-5, Warli Dairy Staff Quarters,\n                        \n       A.G. Khan Road, Worli,\n       Mumbai - 400 018.\n\n    3. Shri Vijay Laxman Attarde,\n       Age : 52 years,\n      \n\n\n       Occupation : Service,\n   \n\n\n\n       R\/o. Sahaniwas Co-op. Housing\n       Society, Building No.11,\n       Siddharth Nagar,\n       4, Goregaon (W),\n\n\n\n\n\n       Mumbai 400 062.\n\n    4. Smt. Leelabai Laxman Attarde,\n       Age : 77 years,\n       Occupation : Household,\n\n\n\n\n\n       At & Post Nanded,\n       Taluka : Dharangaon,\n       Dist. Jalgaon.\n\n    5. Smt. Shailaja Shashikant Phalak,\n       Age : 46 years,\n       Occupation : Household,\n       R\/o. Flat No. 102, Rohit Heights,            .. Petitioners\n       Disuza Colony, Gangapur Road,                   (Original\n       At and Dist. Nashik - 422 005.                   opponents)\n\n\n\n                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:43:10 :::\n                                          (2)\n\n\n\n\n                   versus\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n                                                          \n    1. Atmaram Bhanu Saindane,\n       Age : Major, R\/o. Padase,\n       Taluka : Amalner,\n       Through power of attorney,\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n       Shri Sahebrao Kautik Saindane,\n       Age : Major,\n       R\/o. Old Cheri Naka,\n       Near Annabhau Sathe Statue,\n       Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n    2. The Tahsildar,    \n       Dharangaon,                                           .. Respondents\n       Taluka : Dharangaon,                                     (Original\n                        \n       Dist. Jalgaon.                                            applicant)\n\n\n                                     ..................\n      \n\n\n                Mr. S.D. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioners.\n   \n\n\n\n                Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate, with\n                Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate, for respondent no.1.\n\n\n\n\n\n                Mr. P.M. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader,\n                for respondent no.2.\n\n                                     ..................\n\n\n\n\n\n                                     WITH\n\n\n                        Writ Petition No. 366 of 2009\n\n    1. Shri Ashok Laxman Attarde,\n       Age : 57 years,\n       Occupation : Agriculture & Service,\n       R\/o. Plot No. 141\/3\/13,\n       Ayodya Nagar, Jalgaon.\n\n\n\n                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:43:10 :::\n                                           (3)\n\n\n    2. Shri Dilip Laxman Attarde,\n       Age : 55 years,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n       Occupation : Agriculture & Service,\n       R\/o. E-5, Warli Dairy Staff Quarters,\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n      A.G. Khan Road, Worli,\n       Mumbai - 400 018.\n\n    3. Shri Vijay Laxman Attarde,\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n       Age : 52 years,\n       Occupation : Service,\n       R\/o. Sahaniwas Co-op. Housing\n       Society, Building No.11,\n       Siddharth Nagar,\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n       4, Goregaon (W),\n       Mumbai - 400 062.  \n    4. Smt. Leelabai Laxman Attarde,\n                         \n      Age : 77 years,\n       Occupation : Household,\n      At & Post Nanded,\n      Taluka : Dharangaon,\n       District : Jalgaon.\n      \n\n\n    5. Smt. Shailaja Shashikant Phalak,\n   \n\n\n\n       Age : 46 years,\n       Occupation : Household,\n       R\/o. Flat No. 102,\n\n\n\n\n\n       Rohit Heights, Disuza Colony,               .. Petitioners\n       Gangapur Road,                                 (Original\n       At and Dist. Nashik 422 005.                   opponents)\n\n\n\n\n\n                 versus\n\n\n    1. Smt. Dayabai Kautik Saindane,\n       Age : Major,\n\n    2. Taghunath Kautik Saindane,\n       Age : Major,\n\n\n\n\n                                                ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:43:10 :::\n                                        (4)\n\n    3. Abhiman Kautik Saindane,\n       Age : Major,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n    4. Kailash Kautik Saindane,\n       Age : Major,\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n    5. Smt. Rambhabai Ramdas Koli,\n       Age : Major,\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n    6. Smt. Anjanabai Rayaram Koli,\n       Age : Major,\n\n    7. Smt. Kokilabai Pitambar Koli,\n       Age : Major,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n      Respondent nos.1 to 7,\n                        \n      residing at Nanded,\n      Taluka : Dharangaon,\n                       \n      District : Jalgaon.\n\n    8. Smt. Vaijayantabai Waman Saindane,\n       Age : Major,\n      \n\n\n    9. Smt. Malubai Ramesh Koli,\n       Age : Major,\n   \n\n\n\n    10. Smt. Thagubai Gokul Koli,\n        Age : Major,\n\n\n\n\n\n    11. Damu Narayan Koli,\n        Age : Major,\n\n    12. Bhaidas Narayan Koli,\n\n\n\n\n\n        Age : Major,\n\n       Respondent nos.8 to 12,\n       R\/o. Dahivad,\n       Taluka : Amalner,\n       District : Jalgaon.\n\n\n\n\n                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:43:10 :::\n                                            (5)\n\n    13. Sahebrao Kautik Saindane,\n        R\/o. at Old Cheri Naka,\n        Near Annabhau Sathe Statue,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                        \n        Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.\n                                                                   .. Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n    14. The Tahsildar, Dharangaon,                                    (Original\n        Dist. Jalgaon.                                                applicants)\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n                                 ..........................\n\n\n                Mr. S.D. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioners.\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n                Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate, with\n                Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 13.\n                         \n                Mr. P.M. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader,\n                        \n                for respondent no.14.\n\n\n                                .............................\n      \n   \n\n\n\n                                                CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                DATE : 25TH JUNE 2009.\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT :\n<\/p>\n
    1.          By way of Writ Petition No. 365\/2009, the petitioners have<\/p>\n
    challenged the order dated 3rd December 2008 passed by the learned
\n    Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, in Appeal TRB
\n    No. 197\/B\/2008, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present
\n    petitioners and confirming the order dated 30th May 2008, passed by the
\n    Tahsildar, Dharangaon, in Aadivasi Case No. 1\/2004.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                           (6)<\/span><\/p>\n
    2.           By way of Writ Petition No. 366\/2009, the petitioners have
\n    challenged the order dated 3rd December 2008, passed by the learned<\/p>\n
    Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, in Appeal TRB
\n    No. 198\/B\/2008, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present<\/p>\n
    petitioners and confirming the order dated 30th May 2008, passed by the
\n    Tahsildar, Dharangaon, in Aadivasi Case No. 1\/2002.\n<\/p>\n
    3.           The facts, in nutshell, giving rise to the present petitions are
\n    as under :\n<\/p>\n
    (i)    S\/Shri Kautik Narayan, Waman Narayan, Damu Narayan and<\/p>\n
    Bhaidas Narayan Koli, who are predecessors in title of the present<\/p>\n
    respondents nos.1 to 13, have transferred land Gut No. 103 (old Survey
\n    No. 35\/1\/A), admeasuring 90 R to deceased Laxman Gotu Attarde,
\n    father of the present petitioners, for a consideration of Rs. 11,500\/-. The<\/p>\n
    petitioners’ predecessor in title and the petitioner are in possession of the
\n    said lands since then.\n<\/p>\n
    (ii)   The respondent nos.1 to 13, through respondent no.13, filed<\/p>\n
    Aadivasi Case No. 1\/2002 before the Tahsildar, Dharangaon, for
\n    possession of the disputed lands as per the provisions of the Maharashtra
\n    Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act<\/a>, 1974 (For short,<\/p>\n
    hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). In the other proceedings, the
\n    caste claim of the respondent no.13 herein was being verified by the
\n    competent authority i.e. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee.                 The
\n    Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, vide order dated 13th March
\n    2006, has rejected the claim of respondent no.13 as belonging to “Tokre
\n    Koli”, Scheduled Tribe. The respondent no.13, being aggrieved thereby,
\n    had approached this court by way of Writ Petition No. 3081\/2006. It is<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (7)<\/span><\/p>\n
    to be noted that the present petitioner no.1 was impleaded as respondent
\n    no.3 in the said petition.     The Division Bench of this court, vide<\/p>\n
    judgment and order dated 28th July 2006, upheld the claim of the
\n    respondent no.13 herein as belonging to “Tokre Koli”, Scheduled Tribe,<\/p>\n
    and directed the Scrutiny Committee to issue validity certificate in
\n    favour of respondent no.13.\n<\/p>\n
    (iii)    It appears that the said order was challenged by the State
\n    Government as well as the present petitioner no.1 before the Apex<\/p>\n
    Court. Since there was a delay in filing the Special Leave Petition, an
\n    application for condonation of delay was also filed. The Apex Court<\/p>\n
    vide orders dated 27th May 2007 and 6th August 2007, found that there<\/p>\n
    was no sufficient explanation for the delay and, therefore, dismissed the
\n    Special Leave Petitions filed by the State and the petitioner Ashok,
\n    respectively.   It appears that having not succeeded before the Apex<\/p>\n
    Court, the present petitioner filed a Review Petition before this court,
\n    being Review Petition Stamp no. 18006\/2007.                Since the said<\/p>\n
    application was also delayed, a Civil Application, being Civil
\n    Application No. 8717\/2007 was also filed. This court vide order dated<\/p>\n
    24th January 2008, had rejected the said application finding that the
\n    petitioner has failed to make out a case.\n<\/p>\n
    (iv)    It appears from the record, that though the proceedings were
\n    pending before the respondent no.14, on the application filed by the
\n    respondent no.13, as a power of attorney holder of rest of the
\n    respondents, the present petitioner sought various adjournments.
\n    Presumably, the said adjournments were sought since the issue of tribal
\n    claim of respondent no.13 was pending before the competent authorities.
\n    The Tahsildar finally allowed the application and directed the petitioners<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (8)<\/span><\/p>\n
    to hand over possession of the disputed lands to the respondent nos.1 to
\n    13 vide order dated 30th May 2008.        Being aggrieved thereby, the<\/p>\n
    petitioners approached the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The learned
\n    Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 3rd<\/p>\n
    December 2008 also dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present petitions.\n<\/p>\n
    4.          Mr. S.D. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the
\n    petitioners, challenges the impugned orders basically on two grounds :
\n    (1) that, the respondent no.14 has not followed the principles of natural<\/p>\n
    justice and the procedure prescribed for deciding the application and as
\n    such, the impugned orders are violative of principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
    In this respect, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex<\/p>\n
    Court, in the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and
\n    another (AIR 1978 SC 597), and (2) that, it is to be established that the
\n    vendor was belonging to Scheduled Tribe on the date of the transfer and<\/p>\n
    that subsequent validity of the caste claim of one of the legal
\n    representatives of one of the original vendors, cannot bestow the original<\/p>\n
    vendors with the status of Scheduled Tribe and as such, the transaction
\n    would not be hit by the provisions of the said Act. To substantiate this<\/p>\n
    submission, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed
\n    reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court in the
\n    case of Chandrabhagabai Dhondiba Gutte & others Vs. Ladba<\/p>\n
    Narayan Sidarwad (2006(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 330).\n<\/p>\n
    5.          The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners further
\n    submits that the caste claim of each of the claimants has to be
\n    determined on the basis of the independent evidence led by such
\n    claimant and merely because one of the relatives is held to be Scheduled
\n    Tribe, the other relatives cannot be ipso facto said to be belonging to<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (9)<\/span><\/p>\n
    Scheduled Tribe. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Division
\n    Bench of this court, in the case of Vandana d\/o. Narayan Sonkusare<\/p>\n
    Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (1998(4) Bom.C.R. 432). He has
\n    also placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this<\/p>\n
    court, in the case of Kishore s\/o. Rambhau Sonkusre Vs. The
\n    Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee & another<\/p>\n
    (2000(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 407).\n<\/p>\n
    6.           Mr. P.M. Shinde, learned Assistant Government Pleader,<\/p>\n
    appearing for the respondent State, and Mr. S.R. Barlinge and Mr. V.B.
\n    Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the respective respondents, have<\/p>\n
    submitted that the Tahsildar has passed the order after giving ample<\/p>\n
    opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.     They have submitted that
\n    inspite of grant of ample opportunity, the petitioners have failed to prove
\n    their case before the authority and as such, no interference is warranted.\n<\/p>\n
    7.           No doubt, that by now it is settled law, that every action of<\/p>\n
    the State which results into adverse civil consequences, has to be
\n    preceded by the principles of natural justice. Even if a statute does not<\/p>\n
    provide for observance of principles of natural justice, the requirement of
\n    observance of principles of natural justice is required to be read in the
\n    said statute, unless expressly or by necessary implication, the said<\/p>\n
    requirement is excluded.\n<\/p>\n
    8.           In the present case, the rules framed under the said Act,
\n    which are notified as “The Maharashtra Resettlement of Lands to
\n    Scheduled Tribes Rules, 1975”, provide the procedure prescribed for
\n    conducting the enquiry for restoration of land, under Rule 3 of the said
\n    Rules. From the perusal of the record and from the affidavit in reply, it<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                          ( 10 )<\/p>\n
    can clearly be seen that the respondent no.14 has followed the
\n    requirements of the Rules. From the record, it is clear that though the<\/p>\n
    application was filed in the year 2002, the matter was adjourned on
\n    various dates. The present petitioner had sought as many as 48 dates and<\/p>\n
    accordingly last chance was given to the petitioner to make his
\n    submissions on 16th April 2008. The present petitioner remained absent<\/p>\n
    on 16th April 2008. From the affidavit of the Tahsildar, it is clear that
\n    the Peon had called out the name of the present petitioner on various
\n    occasions. The present petitioner did not attend the proceedings and as<\/p>\n
    such, the matter was posted for orders. The Tahsildar after taking into
\n    consideration the relevant material and finding that the Division Bench<\/p>\n
    of this court has upheld the claim of respondent no.13 as belonging to<\/p>\n
    “Tokre Koli”, Scheduled Tribe, came to the conclusion that the
\n    predecessors in title who had transferred the land to the father of the
\n    present petitioner, were tribal and as such, the respondent nos.1 to 13<\/p>\n
    were entitled for restoration of land. The said finding of fact has been
\n    affirmed by the Tribunal in its appellate jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
    9.           No doubt, that the principles of natural justice are to be<\/p>\n
    followed. However, the same cannot be stretched to such an extent that a
\n    party should be permitted to prolong the proceedings and even if he is
\n    absent, the proceedings should still continue further at the convenience<\/p>\n
    of the party seeking to delay the proceedings. The respondent no.14, so
\n    also, the appellate authority have found that since the land belonged to
\n    the tribal and it was transferred to non-tribal, the respondent nos.1 to 13
\n    were entitled for restoration of the land, in view of provisions of Section
\n    3<\/a> of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
    10.          In so far as the contention of the petitioner, regarding the<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                         ( 11 )<\/p>\n
    authorities not taking into consideration the costs incurred by him for
\n    improvement of the land, is concerned, as already held by the appellate<\/p>\n
    court, the petitioner has failed to lead evidence in that respect. In any
\n    event, the determination of amount payable to the petitioner, under<\/p>\n
    clause “b” of Sub-Section 4 of Section 3 would arise, after the land is
\n    restored to the tribal by the petitioner. It is undisputed that the land is<\/p>\n
    still in possession of the petitioner and the possession is not yet handed
\n    over to the non-tribal.\n<\/p>\n
    11.          Now, let us examine the second contention of the petitioner,
\n    that merely because the caste claim of respondent no.13 is validated, ipso<\/p>\n
    facto it cannot be held that the original vendors are also belonging to<\/p>\n
    Scheduled Tribe and, therefore, provisions of the said Act cannot be
\n    invoked. Admittedly, the respondent no.13 is son of one of the original
\n    vendors, Kautik, who is real brother of rest of the original vendors. All<\/p>\n
    the four original vendors are sons of deceased Narayan. It is not in
\n    dispute that at the relevant time i.e. in the year 1969, there was no<\/p>\n
    requirement of caste claim or tribal claim to be validated by the
\n    Caste\/Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee. The requirement, for the<\/p>\n
    first time, to get the tribal claim or caste claim to be validated from the
\n    Scrutiny Committee was made applicable by a Government Resolution
\n    issued in the year 1985.\n<\/p>\n
    12.          In that view of the matter, I do not find any force in the
\n    submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, that
\n    since the caste claims of the original vendors are not validated, merely
\n    because the caste claim of the son of one of the vendors is validated, the
\n    provisions of the said Act would not be applicable. The tribal claim of
\n    the respondent no.13, who is grandson of deceased Narayan and son of<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                            ( 12 )<\/p>\n
    Kautik, has been held to be valid by this court by taking into
\n    consideration all relevant aspects. It would be an absurdity to hold that<\/p>\n
    though the respondent no.13 has been held to be belonging to Scheduled
\n    Tribe, his father and his father’s brothers are not belonging to Scheduled<\/p>\n
    Tribe. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the
\n    contention raised in this respect.\n<\/p>\n
    13.            In so far as the reliance placed by the learned Counsel
\n    appearing for the petitioners, on the judgment of Division Bench of this<\/p>\n
    court, in the case of Vandana d\/o. Narayan Sonkusare Vs. State
\n    (supra), is concerned, this court has considered that the claim of the<\/p>\n
    daughter could not be held to be valid merely because the father of the<\/p>\n
    said petitioner was recognized as Scheduled Tribe. It can be seen that in
\n    the said case, claim of the father was not validated on merits and as such,
\n    it was held that the petitioner was required to establish her claim by<\/p>\n
    adducing the document in support of the claim. In the case of Kishore
\n    s\/o. Rambhau Sonkusre (supra) also, the reliance on the earlier<\/p>\n
    certificates was found to be not relevant since the earlier claims were not
\n    decided on merits. In that view of the matter, I do not find that the<\/p>\n
    reliance placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, on
\n    these judgments, would be of any assistance to the case of the
\n    petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    14.            For the foregoing reasons, I do not find that any case is
\n    made out by the petitioners for interference in exercise of extraordinary
\n    jurisdiction of this court under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution of India.
\n    The petitions are devoid of any substance.\n<\/p>\n
    15.            In the result, the petitions are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:10 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                          ( 13 )<\/p>\n
    16.         At this stage, Mr. S.D. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing<\/p>\n
    for the petitioners, prays for continuation of the status quo, which was
\n    granted earlier by this court, for a period of four weeks. The prayer is<\/p>\n
    opposed by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
    17.         However, taking into consideration the view that I have
\n    taken, I do not find that a case is made out for extension of status quo
\n    which was granted earlier. Hence, the said prayer is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ( B.R. GAVAI )<\/p>\n
                                                          JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                     ………………….\n<\/p>\n
    bgp\/wp365etc<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:10 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shri Ashok Laxman Attarde vs Atmaram Bhanu Saindane on 25 June, 2009 Bench: B.R. Gavai (1) JUDGMENT REPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 365 of 2009 1. Shri Ashok Laxman Attarde, Age : 57 years, Occupation : Agriculture & Service, R\/o. Plot […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-262645","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Ashok Laxman Attarde vs Atmaram Bhanu Saindane on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Ashok Laxman Attarde vs Atmaram Bhanu Saindane on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-29T11:47:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Ashok Laxman Attarde vs Atmaram Bhanu Saindane on 25 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-29T11:47:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2215,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri Ashok Laxman Attarde vs Atmaram Bhanu Saindane on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-29T11:47:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Ashok Laxman Attarde vs Atmaram Bhanu Saindane on 25 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri Ashok Laxman Attarde vs Atmaram Bhanu Saindane on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Ashok Laxman Attarde vs Atmaram Bhanu Saindane on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-29T11:47:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Ashok Laxman Attarde vs Atmaram Bhanu Saindane on 25 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-29T11:47:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009"},"wordCount":2215,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009","name":"Shri Ashok Laxman Attarde vs Atmaram Bhanu Saindane on 25 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-29T11:47:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ashok-laxman-attarde-vs-atmaram-bhanu-saindane-on-25-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Ashok Laxman Attarde vs Atmaram Bhanu Saindane on 25 June, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262645","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=262645"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262645\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262645"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262645"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262645"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}