Disposed

Sanjay Bhavan Bhamre v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Collector and Others

Bombay HC13 Jul 2023WP/4947/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The high court disposed of a writ petition seeking direction to sanction mutation entry. The court directed the respondent collector to communicate reasons in writing within 30 days as to why the mutation application could not be entertained.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to convey reasons for rejecting the mutation application in writing within 30 days.

Sanjay Bhavan Bhamre Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Collector and Others — Bombay HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

 1 908WP4947.2023.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

908 WRIT PETITION NO. 4947 OF 2023

¶4

SANJAY BHAVAN BHAMRE
VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS COLLECTOR AND
OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. N. L. Chaudhari
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S. B. Yawalkar

¶7

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE

¶8

AND

¶9

Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATED : 13th JULY 2023

¶10

PER COURT : -

¶11

1. The petitioner has put forth prayer clause 'B' as under : -

¶12

"B. By a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents, particularly, the respondent No. 2 and 3 be directed to sanction mutation entry and entered the name of petitioner in the 7/12 extract in land Gat No. 248/2A admeasuring 0.60 R situated at village Waswadi, Ta. Sakri, District Dhule and for that purpose necessary directions be issued."

¶13

2. The learned AGP submits that the mutation entry number

¶14

in the name of the petitioner as an individual, cannot be carried out.

¶15

3.The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that there

¶16

should not be any impediment for the revenue authorities to
communicate in writing to the petitioner as to why his application is not
being considered. The registered Sale Deed is dated 29.04.2015 and

¶17

since then the issue is being kept pending.

¶18

 2 908WP4947.2023.odt

¶19

4.In view of the above, this petition is disposed off. We direct

¶20

that the respondent no. 2 shall convey the reasons to the petitioner in
writing within thirty (30) days, as to why his application for recording
the mutation entry cannot be entertained. The petitioner would be at
liberty to assail the said decision by resorting to a remedy as is
permissible in law.

¶21

 [Y. G. KHOBRAGADE] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

SG Punde

Sanjay Bhavan Bhamre v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Collector and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Bhavan Bhamre v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Collector and Others

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

Rajesh Premsing Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Collector and Another

Hamal Mapadi Kamgar Sanghatana Thr Its Secretary Dushen Hemant Bagul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dhondiram Bhikaji Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Incread Financial Services Ltd. through Its Authorized Officer Anubhav Sinha Rai Mohan Sinha Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Nanded Zilha Truck Cha. Association Nanded through Member S. Harpal Singh S. Bhagwant Singh Gulati Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Yogita Sanjay Sanap Vs the Chief Executive Officer and Others