Bombay High Court
CAW/391/2019 of THE TAHSILDAR, RAMTEK Vs SHRI NARAYAN HIRAMAN UIKEY AND OTHERS on 12 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
(1) 4caw391.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.391/2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7366/2018 (D)
Shri Narayan Hiraman Uikey and Ors. Vs. The Tahsildar, Ramtek and Ors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. N. R. Patil, A.G.P. for applicant-State.
CORAM :
ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
DATE :
OCTOBER 12, 2026
On 30.07.2026, following order was passed:
“1. Mr. N.R.Kanungo, Advocate for non-applicants.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1) By the present application, the applicant – Tahsildar i.e. original respondent No.1 is seeking initiation of action against the non-applicants i.e. original petitioners under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2) The application is filed on the ground that the non-applicants filed petition claiming themselves to be lawful excavator on the land belonging to the State Government. In the midst of the work of excavation, the applicant visited the spot and found that a JCB owned by non-applicant No. 6 and a tractor with trolley owned by non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5 were used for excavation. Upon making inquiries, it was revealed that the excavation was carried out on the land belonging to the State Government by projecting non-applicant No. 1 as the allottee of the said land.
3) Since it was revealed during the course of the hearing of the petition that the non-applicants had sought relief on the basis of a false plea, this Court, while disposing of the petition, granted liberty to the applicant to file an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the present application has been filed.
4) Non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5 are present before us, and we have interacted with them. They admit that the tractor and trolley was owned by them. They submit that their services were engaged by respondent No. 6 for transporting ‘Murum’ to a designated place. They state that they were unaware of the issues involved in the matter.
5) At this stage, learned AGP has invited our attention to the communication dated 22/11/2018
(2) 4caw391.19 made by non-applicant No.1 to the Court, during the pendency of the petition, stating therein that he had not filed the petition and he came to know of the petition only upon receipt of notice of Tahsildar. According to him, the JCB driver obtained his signature saying that he will construct farm pond known as ‘shet tale’. However, the JCB driver did not excavate the ‘Murum’ from his land bearing Survey No.66, but has done so, from the adjoining land bearing Survey No.62, which was owned by State Government.
6) Thus, it appears that non-applicant No.1 is taking a plea that his signature on the petition was obtained by misleading him. So far as non-applicant Nos.2 to 5 are concerned, considering the statement made by them today and in absence of the cogent evidence of their involvement in the matter for which prima facie, we find non-applicant No.6 was responsible, we are of the considered view that the non-applicant Nos.1 to 5 are not liable to be prosecuted under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the application to the extent of non-applicant Nos.1 to 5 is rejected.
7) None appears for non-applicant No.6. Issue notice to non-applicant No.6, returnable on 25/08/2026.”
2. As could be seen, except for non applicant No.6, the others were found not involved. Accordingly, notice came to be issued to non applicant No.6. Attempts to serve notice to non applicant No.6 failed. Bailiff’s report indicates that non applicant No.6 met with an accident four years back and since then he is bed ridden. The report further indicate that his mental condition is not stable.
3. That being so, we are of the considered view that no fruitful purpose will be served in prosecuting non applicant No.6 under the provisions of Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The proceedings are accordingly dropped.
4. The application is disposed in terms of the above. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kahale Signed by: Kahale Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 12/10/2026 18:02:53