Dismissed

Shri. Chandrakant Krushna Pusekar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Jan 2023WP/13893/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for condonation of delay by the Sub Divisional Officer and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The court held the petition lacked merits as the petitioner initiated independent tribal restoration proceedings in 1977, implying awareness of the 1963 mutation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. No costs are awarded to the State.

Shri. Chandrakant Krushna Pusekar and Ors. Vs State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2023)

1 / 3

38-WP-13893-2018.doc

rrpillai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 13893 OF 2018

¶6

Shri Chandrakant Krushna Pusekar and … Petitioners Ors.

¶7

vs.

¶8

State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents

¶9

Mr. Aniket P. Ranade for the Petitioner/s. Mr. P. P. Pujari, AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶10

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶11

DATED : 6 JANUARY, 2023

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

By this Petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 21 September 2017 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai in revision No. TNC/REV/PAL/104/2017 rejection Revision no. and confirming the order dated 24 August 2015 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Vasai. The SDO, Vasai has refused to condone the delay in filing Tenancy Appeal No. VD/Tenancy Appeal/06 of 2014.

¶14

Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI RAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date: 2023.01.07 16:52:20 +0530

¶15

In his Tenancy Appeal the Petitioner has sought to question the validity of the mutation entry dated 3 September 2016. The Tenancy Appeal was instituted in the year 2015 after delay of around 50 long years.

¶16

2 / 3

¶17

38-WP-13893-2018.doc

¶18

I have perused the application for condonation of delay filed by the Petitioner before SDO, Vasai. It was averred in the said application that the Petitioner was unaware of the mutation entry dated 4 July 1963 and that he became aware of the same only after he applied for copies of extracts of the mutation entry on 18 July 2013. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has held in its order that the Petitioner had independently commenced proceedings under Maharashtra Land Revenue Amendment Act, 1977 for restoration of their names as tribals and the said proceedings were dropped on 11 April 1977. This belies the contention of the Petitioner in their application for condonation of delay that they were not aware of the mutation entry effected in the year 1963 and that they acquired such knowledge only in the year 2013.

¶19

The Petitioners were always aware of the mutation entry pertaining to the year 1963 as they initiated independent proceedings for restoration of their lands as tribals in the year 1977. The Petitioners thus did not approach the SDO,Vasai while filing application for condonation of delay. No error is committed by the SDO, Vasai in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The Maharahstra Revenue Tribunal has

¶20

3 / 3

¶21

38-WP-13893-2018.doc

¶22

rightly rejected the Revision filed by the Petitioner. There is no error committed by the SDO, Vasai as well as by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.

¶23

The Petition is devoid of merits. The petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the proceeding under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 were dropped only in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 31-Part and 32-Part and the same were not dropped in respect of Survey No. 78-Part. He submits that the Petitioner can file independent proceeding for claiming tenancy right in respect of land at Survey No. 78Part. If the Petitioners have a remedy of claiming tenancy right in independent proceeding the same can always be initiated. No opinion is expressed about the maintainability of such proceedings.

¶25

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

Shri. Chandrakant Krushna Pusekar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Chandrakant Krushna Pusekar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 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

Zee Learn Limited vs Gyan Shanskar Shikshan Ew Am Samajik Welfare Society

Seals Retails World Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors. vs Fashionista Inc.

Seals Retails World Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors. vs Clothing Intelligence Agency

Ajit Shantilal Surana Vs the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Ors.

Yuvraj Bapu Borgaonkar (Since Deceased through Lrs.) Vs Shri Mahadeo Vithalrao Deshmukh

Dhondiram Govid Kakade Vs Divisional Agari Joint Director and Anr.