k 1/4 7 sa 797.22 w ia as.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.797 OF 2022 Sampat Kisan Mote ....Appellant V/S Vitthal Amarsinh Parkale & Ors. ....Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.20475 OF 2022 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.797 OF 2022 Sampat Kisan Mote ....Appellant V/S Vitthal Amarsinh Parkale & Ors. ....Respondents _________ Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni with Mr. Gaurav Shahane, Mr. Abhishek Roy and Mr. Shreyas Zarkar for the Appellant/Applicant. Mr. Bhushan Walimbe with Mr. Mayank Tripathi for Respondents. __________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 07 OCTOBER 2026. P.C.: 1. This Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code), challenging the judgment and decree dated 27 February 2020 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-2, Baramati, allowing Regular Civil Appeal No.119 of 2014 filed by the Defendants and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19 September 2014 passed by the 6th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Baramati in Regular Civil Suit No.517 of 2012. By its decree dated 19 September 2014, the Trial Court katkam Page No. 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AS:41030 k 2/4 7 sa 797.22 w ia as.doc had decreed Plaintiff’s suit and had injuncted Defendants from disturbing Plaintiff’s possession in respect of the suit property. 2. I have heard Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Plaintiff and Mr. Walimbe, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents/Defendants. 3. The dispute in the suit is qua alluvial land formed abutting the properties of the Plaintiff (Gat No. 164) and Defendants (Gat No. 160/1). According to Plaintiff himself, the alluvial land admeasures 1 acre and 10 gunthas. The Plaintiff claimed that he possessed the entire alluvial land admeasuring 1 acre 10 gunthas. Complaining that Defendant No.1 attempted to disturb his possession of the alluvial land, Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 517 of 2012. The Trial Court decreed the Suit of the Plaintiff, recording a finding that Plaintiff proved possession of the suit property and that he was entitled to secure injunction against settled posession and that he was entitled to secure injunction. The First Appellate Court has reversed the finding of the Trial Court by referring to provisions of Section 33 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC). The First Appellate Court has accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the Plaintiff’s suit. 4. In my view, the frame of the suit by the Plaintiff itself was baseless and contrary to the scheme of provisions of Section 32 and 33 of the MLRC. The statutory scheme of Sections 32 and 33 of the MLRC is such that when alluvial land forms on the bank or shore, the occupant of such katkam Page No. 2 of 4 k 3/4 7 sa 797.22 w ia as.doc bank/shore is entitled to temporarily use thereof so long as the area of the alluvial land does not exceed one acre. If the area of the alluvial land exceeds one acre, use of the alluvial land can be made only by seeking allotment by the Collector under Section 32 of the MLRC. Thus, alluvial land admeasuring less than one acre can be put to temporary use by the adjoining occupant. However, the moment the total area of alluvial land exceeds one acre, temporary use thereof is not permissible and the same can be put to an use only after securing allotment from the Collector under Section 32 of the MLRC. 5. In the present case, Plaintiff admits in paragraph 1 of the plaint that the area of the alluvial land is 1 acre 10 gunthas. Since the total area of the alluvial land exceeded one acre, the Plaintiff did not have a right even to put the land for temporary use. He ought to have secured allotment in respect of the alluvial land from the Collector. Mere filing of an application to the Collector for allotment of alluvial land is not sufficient and use of the alluvial land can commence only after the allotment is made by the Collector. 6. Also of relevance is the fact that the length or width of the main land abutting alluvial land is of no significance. In the present case, the alluvial land abuts the properties of the Plaintiff as well as the Defendants. What matters is the total area of alluvial land irrespective of the length of its bank/shore. In that sense, neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants can claim use of the alluvial land. In these circumstances, Plaintiff could not have filed a suit to injunct Defendants disturbing his katkam Page No. 3 of 4 k 4/4 7 sa 797.22 w ia as.doc alleged possession of the alluvial land. Since the area of the alluvial land exceeds one acre, the Plaintiff can never be in settled possession thereof. The Trial Court had egregiously erred in recording a finding of settled possession of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit property. The First Appellate Court has correctly reversed the finding of the Trial Court regarding settled possession and has rightly held that the Plaintiff has no right to use the alluvial land formed adjacent to his land. The First Appellate Court has rightly allowed the Appeal filed by the Defendants. No substantial question of law is involved in the Appeal. Second Appeal is accordingly rejected. 7. At this stage, Mr. Kulkarni submits that Plaintiff has submitted an application to the Collector for allotment of the alluvial land. Mr. Walimbe claims that even Defendants have applied for such allotment. If that is the case, nothing recorded in the order shall come in the way of either of the parties in seeking allotment of the alluvial land. 8. In view of the disposal of the Second Appeal, nothing would survive in the Interim Application for injunction and the same is accordingly disposed of. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) katkam Page No. 4 of 4 Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 09/10/2026 14:51:51