Dismissed

Rekha Pandharinath Amberkar v. Maruti Gunaji Chavan @ Majalkar and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Feb 2023WP/350/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Writ Petition challenging a mutation entry does not survive as the issue of title was already a substantive matter pending in revision of tenancy proceedings. Consequently, the Writ Petition and a connected Civil Application were disposed of with a direction for future proceedings to seek title determination in the appropriate Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition and Civil Application disposed; Mutation Entry issue subject to outcome of tenancy proceedings.

Rekha Pandharinath Amberkar Vs Maruti Gunaji Chavan @… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

21.wp.350.02.doc

¶2

Ajay

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 350 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1952 OF 2016

¶6

Rekha Pandharinath Amberkar

¶7

(Since Deceased Through LRs)
Vidhya Pandrinath Amberkar and Ors.

¶8

..Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

Maruti Gunaji Chavan @ Majalkar and Ors. ..Respondents

¶11

Mr. Aniket Ranade i/by Mr. Rupesh Turbhekar, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Rajesh B. Parab, Advocate for Respondents.

¶13

CORAM:MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE:FEBRUARY 01, 2023.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1. Heard Mr. Ranade, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Mr.

¶16

Parab, learned Advocate for Respondents for some time.

¶17

2. The present Writ Petition takes exception to the order dated

¶18

07.10.2003 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Konkan

¶19

Division in revision proceedings in respect of Mutation Entry No.1543
pertaining to the subject land.

¶20

3. Both the learned Advocates are ad idem that revenue entry

¶21

would not determine their title. Mr. Ranade, learned Advocate for
Petitioners would submit that in the meanwhile Petitioners have
purchased the subject suit property in tenancy proceeding case No.379

¶22

1 of 2

¶23

21.wp.350.02.doc

¶24

of 2000 on 27.07.2001 and the same is also subject matter of
challenge by the Respondent before the concerned Competent
Authority.

¶25

4. Considering that a substantive challenge is maintained in the tenancy proceedings with respect to the same subject matter, the issue relating to the subject Mutation Entry No.1543 in the present Writ Petition would be the governed by the outcome of the said tenancy proceedings.

¶26

5. In that view of the matter, present Writ Petition does not survive. Writ Petition is disposed with the directions that the subject Mutation Entry No.1543 shall be subject to the outcome of the tenancy proceedings or any other substantive proceedings may be filed by the parties in the appropriate Civil Court of original civil jurisdiction.

¶27

6. With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed.

¶28

7. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, pending Civil Application No.1952 of 2016 does not survive and is accordingly disposed.

¶29

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶30

AJAYTRAMBAKUGALMUGALE Digitally signedby AJAYTRAMBAKUGALMUGALEDate: 2023.02.0313:38:15 +0530

¶31

2 of 2

Rekha Pandharinath Amberkar v. Maruti Gunaji Chavan @ Majalkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha Pandharinath Amberkar v. Maruti Gunaji Chavan @ Majalkar 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

Baban Dattu Apradh and Anr. Vs M/S. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. and Ors.

M/S. Shree Dharmanath Ventures LLP Vs State of Maharashtra Thru Revenue Minister, Revenue Dept. and Ors.

Baramati Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs Mayur S Shewale and Anr.

Balaso Jinappa Buksheth Vs Manoj Mohan Bahirsheth

Prakash Narayan Harake Vs Anil Kisan Walunj and Ors.

Hari Shankar Rede Vs Shivaji Rajaram Rede and Ors.