Dismissed

Bipin M. Gandhi and Ors. v. the Honble Secretary - Revenue Department and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Feb 2009PIL/82/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL petition by agriculturists regarding mutation entry against a Devstan landlord was not entertained as P.L. The High Court held that such revenue disputes fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue authority and must be approached there.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to approach competent revenue authority.

Bipin M. Gandhi and Ors. Vs the Honble… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 P.I.L. NO. 82 OF 2008

¶5

 Bipin M. Gandhi & Ors. .. Petitioners.

¶6

vs.

¶7

 The State of Maharashtra

¶8

 & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶9

 Mr. J.N. Pawar & N.M. Gandhi for Petitioners.

¶10

 Mr. P.M. Patil, AGP. for Respondent/State.

¶11

CORAM: J.N. PATEL, &

¶12

 R.M. SAVANT, JJ.

¶13

DATE: 4TH FEBRUARY, 2009.

¶14

 P.C.

¶15

 . The petitioners are the agriculturists of

¶16

 villages which come within Deolali Taluka, District
 Nashik. The grievance of the petitioners is that in
 the year 1974 a mutation entry came to be made by the
 Collector in the name of Devstan Inam by granting
 statutory title to Devstan in the year 1974 which,
 according to the petitioners, stems from Sanad granted

¶17

 by the then Ruler for the maintenance of Ram and
 Vanktesh (Balaji) Mandir at Nashik. The reliefs which
 the petitioners are seeking against the said Devstan is

¶18

¶19

 in respect of land holders of villages Vihitgaon,
 Tirdshet, Belatgavhan, Sawargaon and Manoli.

¶20

 2. The facts pleaded in the petition clearly show
 that the matter was agitated by some of the villagers
 before the revenue authorities as well as in the Civil
 Court. On representation made by the villagers, the
 matter was also referred to the Office of the Charity
 Commissioner who refused to intervene in the matter on
 the ground that the subject matter of mutation of
 agricultural land does not fall within the purview of
 the Charity Commissioner and rightly so.

¶21

 3. A Public Interest Litigation cannot be
 entertained on this issue. It will be proper that the
 petitioners who are aggrieved by the mutation entry
 should agitate their matter before the revenue
 authority which has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with
 such issue. Therefore, we are not inclined to
 entertain this petition as a public interest litigation
 and dismiss the same with liberty to the petitioners to
 take recourse to law by approaching competent authority
 in the matter, subject to the Law of Limitation.

¶22

 (J.N. Patel, J.)

¶23

¶24

 (R.M. Savant, J.)

Bipin M. Gandhi and Ors. v. the Honble Secretary - Revenue Department and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipin M. Gandhi and Ors. v. the Honble Secretary - Revenue Department and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Vishnu Dattatraya Barve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sarvajanik Nagari Suvidha Samittee, Malegaon Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prakash Sitaram Kadam and Ors. Vs the Block Development Officer - Panchayat Samiti, Kagal and Ors.

Bharat Sudam Salunkhe and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maniklal Pirchand Lunawat and Anr. Vs Gajanan Heramb Deo and Ors.

Bharat Sudam Salunkhe and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Janhit Manch and 2 Ors. Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Hashmat Parkar Vs the Municipal Commissioner, Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Anant Hari Padhye Gurjar and Anr.

Shri Siddhivinayak Mitra Mandal Vs the Director General, Defence Estates (Lands Section) and Ors.