Notice to Pune coop court judge

MUMBAI, JUNE 13: A division bench of Bombay High Court has directed the registrar to issue a contempt notice to B G More, Pune Cooperative C...

MUMBAI, JUNE 13: A division bench of Bombay High Court has directed the registrar to issue a contempt notice to B G More, Pune Cooperative Court II Judge, for violating an earlier order of the High Court and interfering with the administration of justice.

The division bench comprising A P Shah and A B Palkar issued the notice, dated May 6, 1998, after the Pune cooperative court judge passed orders against a landowner. The judge directed that he shall not take possession of his properties in Pune and Mahabaleshwar, despite an earlier High Court order allowing immediate possession of property.

The case highlights the sorry state of land grabbing operations which have spread from Mumbai city to other parts of the State like Pune and Mahabaleshwar. The problem began when Mumbai-based Batliboi family, which owns two large properties at Pune and Mahabaleshwar for more than 50 years, were served with a notice from B G More in April, 1998. The order directed the Batliboi family 8220;not to interfere with thepossession8221; of Azim Karim Virani, who claimed that he owned the properties and was the promoter of a proposed cooperative society. The order also directed the police at both places to assist its enforcement.

Shocked at what they regarded an assault on their family properties, the Batlibois approached the High Court. They challenged the legality of the order as the cooperative court had no jurisdiction over matters regarding a society not yet formed and as the Pune court had no jurisdiction over the Mahabaleshwar property.

A single judge of the Bombay High Court admitted the petition and stayed the order of the Pune judge, but declined to undo the effect of the order by appointing a receiver of the properties as sought by the petitioners.

Following an immediate appeal, a two-judge bench then appointed a receiver to take possession of the properties with, if required, police help. But much to the Batliboi family8217;s surprise, on reaching Mahabaleshwar the High Court receiver was faced with another orderpassed by the Pune judge directing that he shall not take possession of the property.

The Batlibois again appealed to the High Court. The division bench passed strictures against the conduct of the respondents and of the cooperative court judge. The High Court after hearing senior advocate Iqbal Chagla, not only stayed the Pune court order but also directed the court receiver to carry out its earlier order by dispossessing whoever may be in possession of the properties. The judges, Shah and Palkar, further directed B G More not to deal with disputes regarding these properties.