1 Cri. W. P. No. 1045-2023 order.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 922 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1045 OF 2023 VISHWANATH PANDHARINATH GURME THROUGH GPA TUKARAM PANDHARINATH GURME VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Adv. Reddy Ajinkya, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, APP for Respondents ... CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 29/09/2026 Order (PER : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) :- . Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the admission stage. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioners mainly for declaring the action of the respondents of taking forcible possession of Plot No. 94 situated at Village Chimachi Wadi, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur, by misusing the order of police protection dated 17.02.2023, as ultra vires and unlawful. They have also prayed for appropriate compensation from respondent Nos. 1 to 5 for their alleged illegal act. 2026:BHC-AUG:45840-DB 2 Cri. W. P. No. 1045-2023 order.odt 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is owner and possessor of Grampanchayat Plot No. 94 admeasuring 150 x 100 sq. ft. in village Chimachi Wadi. Thereafter, in the year 2004, one Bhagirathibai Keshav Gurme filed Civil Suit No. 437 of 2004 for declaration of ownership and also for perpetual injunction in respect of Grampanchayat Plot No. 81. A decree was passed in favor of the Bhagirathibai which is now the subject matter of Second Appeal (St.) No. 31832 of 2014, pending before this Court. However, Bhagirathibai and her son-in-law Nagnath Pundlikrao Bande, under the garb of the judgment and decree in the aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No. 437 of 2004, encroached upon Plot No. 94 and dispossessed the petitioner No.1 by misusing the police protection order dated 17.02.2023 granted to Nagnath Pundlikrao Bande. According to him, Nagnath Pundlikrao Bande, by taking disadvantage of the said police protection, forcibly dispossessed the petitioners from Plot No.94 and therefore, the police had acted contrary to the Government Resolution dated 04.01.2018. 4. On the contrary, the learned APP by filing an affidavit of the Assistant Police Inspector of Wadhwana Police Station, strongly resisted the contention of the petitioners and contended that no 3 Cri. W. P. No. 1045-2023 order.odt such misuse of police protection granted to Nagnath, was done but, in fact, Bhagirathibai was having a decree in her favor and in execution of the said decree, she was granted police protection in respect of getting possession of Plot No. 81. The petitioner had in fact, tried to interfere with the possession of said Plot No. 81 and for that purpose a crime was also registered. So far as Plot No. 94 is concerned, the petitioners could not establish any right over Plot No. 94 and it was in fact, not owned by petitioner No.1. One, Tukaram Pundlikrao Gurme filed complaint dated 02.12.2020, for getting Form No. 8 in respect of Plot No. 94 in the name of petitioner No. 1, but the said request was turned down after due inquiry. Accordingly, the learned APP submits that when the petitioner No.1 could not establish his right over the said Plot No. 94, there cannot be any direction given for granting any compensation for his alleged dispossession of the said Plot No. 94. 5. It is to be noted that the petitioners are seeking the aforesaid reliefs on the basis of the entry of petitioner No.1 in the revision register of Grampanchayat Plot No. 94 of Chimachi Wadi Grampanchayat for the year 1991-92. However, a detailed inquiry was done in this respect by recording the statements of concerned persons, including the petitioner No.1 on 24.03.2022 and in the 4 Cri. W. P. No. 1045-2023 order.odt said inquiry, it was revealed that the name of petitioner No.1 was entered in the revision register of Plot No. 94 without any right due opportunity was also given to the petitioner No.1 in the said inquiry. It appears from the said inquiry, which is at Exh. R-3 along with the affidavit in reply, that there was no record available in the Grampanchayat about the said Plot No. 94. Moreover, it was also revealed that, without any record, the name of petitioner No.1 was recorded in the revision register in respect of the said Plot No. 94. There were no boundaries mentioned in the revision register in respect of the said Plot. Under such circumstances, it was observed that petitioner No.2 could not establish his rights over the said Plot No. 94 and hence, the complaint of one Tukaram Gurme on behalf of the petitioner No.1 was filed. Thus, it appears that the existence of Plot No. 94 itself is doubtful. 6. Further, the concerned Police Officer i.e. Assistant Police Inspector had also prayed for closing the complaint of Tukaram by submitting report dated 03.06.2023 to the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Ahmedpur by observing that the police protection was also given to the mother-in-law of Nagnath and for protection of Plot No. 81, one offence was also registered against Tukaram for committing theft of the fencing of the said Plot. Thus, on going through the 5 Cri. W. P. No. 1045-2023 order.odt entire record, it appears that the petitioners could not establish their ownership over the said Plot No. 94 and the very existence of Plot No. 94 is doubtful, as the entry of name of petitioner No. 1 was taken in revision register of the said Plot without having any record of the same. Therefore, we are of the opinion that, there is no substance in the petition and hence, the Criminal Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule is accordingly discharged. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) shivani/