Disposed

Mrs. Kumudini Chandrakant Pethkar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through Addl.

Bombay HC16 Oct 2023WP/12074/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay citizen dismissed a writ petition but granted interim liberty to the petitioners to file a second revision application under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code before the State Government regarding the cancellation of their mutation entries.

What did the court decide?

Granted liberty to file a second Revision Application under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code before the State Government.

Mrs. Kumudini Chandrakant Pethkar and Ors. Vs State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Neeta Sawant 1/3 14-WP-12074-2016.doc

¶2

16 October 2023.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 12074 OF 2016

¶6

Kumudini Chandrakant Petkar ...Petitioners and Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents

¶7

Dr. Uday Warunjikar, for the Petitioners.

¶8

Mr. P.P. Pujari, AGP for State- Respondent No.1.

¶9

Mr. Soham Powar i/by. Mr. Rajesh More, for Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶11

Dated : 16 October 2023.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶14

By this petition, Petitioners challenge order dated 19 November 2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune rejecting the Revision Application No.358/2008. Before the Additional Commissioner, Petitioners had assailed order dated 31 May 2008 passed by the Additional Collector, Pune. The SubDivisional Officer’s order dated 17 June 2006 was the subject matter of challenge filed in the RTS Appeal filed before the

¶15

Neeta Sawant 2/3 14-WP-12074-2016.doc 16 October 2023.

¶16

Additional Collector. Before the Additional Collector, Petitioners had challenged the order passed by the Tenancy Avval Karkoon, Mulshi on 6 August 2004 by which it was ordered that Mutation Entries No. 2638, 2639 and 2640 be cancelled. By those mutation entries, name of Petitioners were mutated to the record of rights of the land in question. The main reasons for the Tenancy Avval Karkoon to direct cancellation of the said Mutation Entries appear to be alleged non-payment of full consideration agreed under the registered sale-deed and failure on the part of the Petitioners to prove that they are Agriculturists as on the date of execution of the sale-deed.

¶17

The Petitioners have an alternate remedy of filing a second revision under the provisions of Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code before the State Government.

¶18

Accordingly, the present petition can be disposed of by granting Petitioners liberty to file second Revision Application before the State Government. While considering and deciding the Revision Application, the State Government shall decide the issue as to whether alleged non-payment of full amount of consideration under the registered sale-deed can be a valid reason for Revenue Authorities to set aside a Mutation Entry. The State Government shall also take into consideration the evidence that would be produced by the Petitioners in support of their claim that they are

¶19

Neeta Sawant 3/3 14-WP-12074-2016.doc 16 October 2023.

¶20

Agriculturists. The time spent in prosecuting the present petition shall be considered for condoning the delay in filing the Revision Application. The State Government shall decide the Revision Application in an expeditious manner. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶21

NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT

¶22

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶23

Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2023.10.17 15:56:43 +0530

Mrs. Kumudini Chandrakant Pethkar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through Addl.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Kumudini Chandrakant Pethkar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through Addl.

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

Housefin Co-Op Hou. Soc. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Dept. of Co-Op and Ors.

Balasaheb Ganpat Yadav Vs Laxman Mahadeo Kadam and Ors.

Aaba Yasvant Deshmukh Decd. Thr Lhrs Smt. Kalabai Aaba Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Ministry of and Ors.

Nashik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Nashik and Ors. Vs Balkrishna Murlidhar Kautkar and Anr.

Ramchandra Krishna Phalke and Ors. Vs Satara Dist Agrucultural Rural and Multipurpose Dev. Co. Op Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Mahadev Ravba Ithape and Ors. Vs Satara Dist. Agricultural Rural and Multipurpose Dev Co. Op Bank Ltd. and Ors.