NAGPUR: Three months after TOI published a report about one of India’s oldest cases that was pending for over 67 years, the

court finally disposed of the case on April 8.

Precisely for 66 years, three months and 12 days since its filing in 1952, the case moved from the trial to appellate to high courts and came back with directives to Taluka (TILR) and District Inspector of Land Records (DILR) to measure the land as per original records of November 2, 1934. The civil court had directed to re-measure all plots to Land Records Department after it was found that the plot no 79, which was in dispute, was not at all located there.

“I draw inference that plaintiff had purchased plot no 79 hastily without physically locating it on the spot. Thus, plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of possession,” fifth joint civil judge Mohini Nanaware ruled.

The court, however, granted relief to the petitioner as per his prayer for refund of Rs400, the cost at which the plot was purchased on August 22, 1949, by original plaintiff Dr Keshao Tunkikar, who completed his dentist degree from Karachi Medical College in Pakistan. This amount is to be refunded with 1% per month interest to petitioner from 1952 when the case was filed. The property was purchased from original defendant Uttamrao Patil while Zabuji Ingle was another one as he was allegedly residing on the disputed property.

TOI in its exclusive report narrated how the Maharashtra’s oldest case was still pending even after three generations of both plaintiffs and defendants and also the lawyers were waiting for its outcome. As per the court’s order, Sharad Wankhede, legal heir of original defendant, would have possession of entire plot and he would refund Rs400 with 12% per annum interest to Shobha Nande, who is Dr Tunkikar’s daughter.

On August 1, 2011, the trial court presided over by judge DM Deshmukh had last heard the case and directed that the plots claimed by both applicants and defendants were on their respective places and nobody is claiming possession of each other plots. He had asked the DILR to measure the entire areas as per original records of 1934. Since then, there is no progress in the case till this year, except the related files, which changed hands.

After TOI’s report published on January 21, the judiciary took cognisance and directed the Akola principal judge to expedite the case. Subsequently, the judge Nanaware, issued contempt notice to district superintendent of land records (DSLR) for inordinate delay of over six and half years in measuring the small piece of just 800 sqft of land. Accordingly, the land measuring was conducted once again, where it was found that plot no 79 never existed and vendor at that time had mislead Dr Tunkikar.

The judge pointed out land officer’s report where he had clearly stated that there is mistake in mentioning the boundary on west side of the disputed property. “Mention of plot no 79 on west of suit property appears to be wrong. While concluding the report, the officer has opined that as the plots were open at the time of transaction, plaintiff's vendor has mentioned four boundaries of the Wankhede’s plot by mistake. Subsequently, there’s mistake in mentioning of four boundaries of Plot no. 79 in plaintiff’s sale deed and therefore, it’s impractical to grant relief to the plaintiff,” she said.