Disposed

Shri. Amitkumar Mahavir Gat and Ors. v. the Tahesildar of Karveer Thru Gp High Court and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Oct 2018WP/11679/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order in three writ petitions held that authorities cannot delete petitioner names from revenue records under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code without a hearing. Petitions disposed of with a direction to provide an opportunity of being heard.

What did the court decide?

Directions to effect deletion of names must follow an opportunity of being heard to petitioners.

Shri. Amitkumar Mahavir Gat and Ors. Vs the Tahesildar of… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 p-507-508-cwp-9885-18 @9872-18.doc

¶2

DSS

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9885 OF 2018

¶4

Pravin P. Kalbar and ors. V/s.

¶5

… Petitioners.

¶6

The Tahesildar of Karveer and ors. … Respondents.

¶7

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9872 OF 2018 Ramesh D. Tanwai and ors. … Petitioners. V/s. The Tahesildar of Karveer and ors. … Respondents.

¶8

AND

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 11679 OF 2018

¶10

Amitkumar M. Gat and ors.

¶11

… Petitioners.

¶12

V/s.

¶13

The Tahesildar of Karveer and ors.

¶14

… Respondents.

¶15

APPEARANCE IN ALL MATTERS

¶16

Mr.Manoj A. Patil for the Petitioners. Mr. P.P. More, AGP for the Respondent No.1/ State.

¶17

CORAM : A.S. OKA AND M.S. SONAK, JJ. DATE : 23^rd OCTOBER 2018.

¶18

COMMON ORDER

¶19

1] Not on board. Taken on board.

¶20

2] Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned AGP for the 1^st respondent.

¶21

3] According to the case of the petitioners, their names appear in Kabjedar column of 7 x 12 extracts in respect of the subject lands as of

¶22

DSS

¶23

2 p-507-508-cwp-9885-18 @9872-18.doc

¶24

today. The apprehension of the petitioners is that, on the basis of the communication dated 12^th June 2018 issued by the Tahasildar of Karveer, their names will be deleted from the revenue record and the names of the legal representatives of the original owner will be mutated.

¶25

4] We accept the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the names of the petitioners appear even today in Kabjedar column of 7 x 12 extracts in respect of the subject lands. In view of the said statement, it is obvious that the Authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 cannot not delete the names of the petitioners from 7 x 12 extracts without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Thus, action of deletion of the names of the petitioners, if any, shall not be taken on the basis of the impugned communication without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.

¶26

5] With the above directions, the petitions are disposed of.

¶27

6] All contentions on merits are kept open.

¶28

(M. S. SONAK, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)

Shri. Amitkumar Mahavir Gat and Ors. v. the Tahesildar of Karveer Thru Gp High Court and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Amitkumar Mahavir Gat and Ors. v. the Tahesildar of Karveer Thru Gp High Court and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Borouge Pte Ltd. Vs Multi Flex Lami Print Ltd.

Sohrab Tehmton Anklesaria Vs Feroza Sohrab Anklesaria

Apex Construction Vs Adarsh Water Parks and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Rajinder Mehta Vs Pranesh Gupta and 3 Ors.

Shri. Pravin Pandurang Kalbar and Ors. Vs the Tahesildar of Karveer and Ors.

Shri. Ramesh Dayaldas Tanwani and Ors. Vs the Tahesildar of Karveer and Ors.