Dismissed

Nayan Bharat Davda and Ors. v. Murlidhar Ramchandra Kamble and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Jul 2024WP/10594/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order that condoned a 28-year delay in challenging a mutation entry. The court held that disputed facts regarding potential fraud or notice to other parties fall within the domain of the Collector under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, precluding writ intervention under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed. No costs.

Nayan Bharat Davda and Ors. Vs Murlidhar Ramchandra Kamble… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

14-WP-10594-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 10594 OF 2024

¶4

Nayan Bharat Davda And Ors ...Petitioner Versus Murlidhar Ramchandra Kamble And Ors ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. Akshay Pethkar, with Mr. Mayuresh Ingale, for the Petitioner. Mr. Suhas Indamdar, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 9. Mr. Y.D. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 11 to 13 – State.

¶6

P.C.:

¶7

ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL

¶8

Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2024.07.30 20:08:21 +0530

¶9

Heard Mr Akshay Pethkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition questions the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the Sud Divisional Officer, in which delay of around 28 years in challenging Mutation Entry No. 1294 dated 05.01.1993, has been condoned, without the petitioner being made a party, in whose favour Mutation Entry No. 2150 dated 25.05.2004 in respect of the same property stands, on account of the Sale Deed dated 23.04.2004, and even the appeal itself has been allowed (page 69).

1 of 2

Arun Sankpal

14-WP-10594-2024.doc

Though there is an alternate remedy of an appeal available before the Collector under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that this is a fit case for exercising the jurisdiction under the Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which ought to be invoked considering a fraud has been played upon the revenue authority. However, what is material to note is that in support of the above contention that the petitioner’s name was recorded, in respect of the subject property vide Mutation Entry No. 2150 dated 25.05.2004, nothing has been placed on record on account of which the question whether the respondent Nos. 1 to 9, were unaware of Mutation Entry No. 2150 or of the plea that the Mutation Entry No.2150, related to the subject property itself would be a question, which would depend upon disputed facts, considering which since the petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the Collector under Section 247 of the MLR code, I did not not see any reasons to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶14

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶15

2 of 2

¶16

Arun Sankpal

Nayan Bharat Davda and Ors. v. Murlidhar Ramchandra Kamble and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nayan Bharat Davda and Ors. v. Murlidhar Ramchandra Kamble 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

Suresh Pralhad Sontakke vs Nagpur Improvement Trust, Thr. Its Chairman, Nagpur and Ors.

Seth Cowasji Dhunjishaw Baug Charity Turst vs District Diputy Registrar and Ors.

Ashoka Institute of Medical and Science and Research vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Princhipal Secretary and Anr.

Amol Vijay Joshi vs Chinar Heights Co. Op Soc Ltd. and Ors.

Unnat Nagar DIVISION3 Co. Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Honarable Ministry of Housing and Cooperation and Ors.

Nayan Bharat Davda and Ors. vs Murlidhar Ramchandra Kamble and Ors.