However, her family’s failure to get a favourable order from the court to stop the division of property they reside in, has added to her frustrations.
Priya, the widow of Nilesh Mitbownkar, who in her complaint to the Pernem PI said that her husband committed suicide due to the “harassment and threat of Dayanand Madrekar and Samir Mandrekar, has alleged that her tenanted land was illegally taken over and partitioned by the Mandrekars.
Minister Dayanand Mandrekar and his son, who were the new owners of the property of the Mithbownkars, including the house where they lived sought to partition the property into two parcels. The Mithbownkars have alleged that this was done without even informing the Mithbownkars and another family, who were co-tenants on the same land. Importantly the principal members of these families, Vasant Baji Bagli and Vasudev G Morajkar, whose names were on the ownership document Form I and XIV, giving them rights as tenants, both expired. Thus these two families had two demands, namely
1) Not to allow the partition of the property by the new landlord Samir Dayanand Mandrekar, son of Minister Dayanand Mandrekar
2) Include the descendants of the deceased in Form I and XIV. These descendents are the ones who moved the Deputy Collector, with an intervention petition.
In his reply Samir Mandrekar stated that the names of Vasant Baji Bagli and Vasudev G Morajkar are wrongly shown as cultivator, tenant in the other rights column of Form I & XIV. He also said that the those who moved the deputy collector against partitioning of the property are “not concerned with the suit property or have any right in the suit property” and asked for a dismissal of the application by the tenants on the ground that they had ‘miserably failed to produce any relevant document to support their case”
The Deputy Collector Meena Goltekar in her order, rejected the application of the Mithbownkars and the other tenant family on two apparently flimsy grounds: The death certificates of Vasant Baji Bagli and Vasudev Govind Morajkar were not submitted. And the claim that the two deceased were also known by other names was not backed by documents.
The Deputy Collector instead of giving a chance to the Mitbownkars and family of the Bagli’s to produce the required documents and treat this case on merit, rejected it. This meant that the objection to the Mandrekar’s partitioning of the property they said they had a claim over, was quashed without giving them a full opportunity, a clear case of powerful forces winning over the powerless.
