Quashed

Mr. Balkrishna Raghunath Pendse (Decd) through Lr. Sudha Pendse and Ors. v. Mr. Bhalchandra Ganesh Sapre and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Jan 2024WP/11358/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged consolidation-correction orders passed without hearing them, as notice went to wrong addresses. The High Court held the orders unsustainable for denial of natural justice, quashed them and remanded the matter to the Deputy Director, Land Records for fresh decision after hearing both sides.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; proceeding remanded to Deputy Director, Land Records for decision afresh after hearing both parties.

Mr. Balkrishna Raghunath Pendse (Decd) through Lr. Sudha… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

5-wp11358-2018.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.11358 OF 2018

¶5

ATUL GANESH KULKARNI

¶6

Digitally signed byATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2024.01.02 16:24:35 +0530

¶7

Balkrishna Raghunath Pendse
(deceased through Legal heirs
Sudha Pendse & Ors.… Petitioners

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Bhalchandra Ganesh Sapre & Ors.… Respondents

¶10

Mr. Anant Vadgaonkar for the petitioners.
Mr. Sandesh Deshpande for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
Ms. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for respondent Nos.6 &
7/State.

¶11

CORAM:AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶12

DATED:JANUARY 2, 2024

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1.The petitioners are challenging orders passed by the
authorities under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of
Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. It appears
that respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed an application under Section 32 of
the said Act for correction of record prepared by the Consolidation
Authorities. The first authority issued notice to the petitioners.
However, the postal packets indicate that the address was either
insufficient or the petitioners were not residing on the said
address. The first authority, therefore, confirmed the modification
prayed by the respondents.

¶15

¶16

5-wp11358-2018.doc

¶17

2.Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed appeal under Section
257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before the
Minister. The Minister, by order dated 30 January 2018, confirmed
the order. By order dated 22 March 2018 the Minister issued
clarification to substitute seven properties instead of five properties
mentioned at page 5, line No.9 of its order dated 30 January 2018.

¶18

3.The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is
that the petitioners were not heard by the first authority and
orders affecting their legal rights have been passed.

¶19

4.On perusal of the record and in particular postal packets
placed on record, it appears that the address mentioned on the
postal receipts was not the address where the petitioners reside at
the relevant time, with the result order adverse to the interest of
the petitioners was passed without granting opportunity of hearing
to the petitioners. It was, therefore, necessary for the Minister to
set aside the first authority’s order confirming change suggested by
the respondents. Since the first authority has passed order without
granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, only on that
ground, the orders impugned cannot be sustained. Hence,
following order:

¶20

a)Impugned order dated 19 June 2017 passed by the
Deputy Director, Land Records, Konkan Region, Mumbai in
S.R. No.30 of 2017 annexed to this writ petition at Exhibit
“E” as also orders dated 30 January 2018 and 22 March
2018 passed by respondent No.7 are quashed and set aside;

¶21

¶22

5-wp11358-2018.doc

¶23

b)The proceeding is remanded back to the Deputy
Director, Land Records, Konkan Region, Mumbai for decision
afresh in accordance with law;

¶24

c)The parties shall appear before the Deputy Director,
Land Records, Konkan Region, Mumbai on 29 January 2024;
d)Respondent No.6 shall decide the application of the
respondents in accordance with law after giving opportunity
of hearing to both the sides.

¶25

5.The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. No
costs.

¶26

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶27

Mr. Balkrishna Raghunath Pendse (Decd) through Lr. Sudha Pendse and Ors. v. Mr. Bhalchandra Ganesh Sapre and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Balkrishna Raghunath Pendse (Decd) through Lr. Sudha Pendse and Ors. v. Mr. Bhalchandra Ganesh Sapre 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

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Thr Its Pune Divisional Office Vs Office of Honorable Estate Officer and Ors.

Writer Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd.through Director, Yazdi Desai Vs Kishor Govind Pate and Ors.

Writer Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd.through Director, Yazdi Desai Vs Kishor Govind Pate and Ors.

Jyoti Nagar Co. Opo Housing Soc Ltd. and Ors. vs Vishwanath Devmane and Ors.

Sopan Babaji Chavan (Since Decd.) through Lrs. Vs Bhausaheb Ramchandra Deshmukh and Ors.

Allauddin Nizamuddin and Ors. Vs Mahendrasingh Bhagwansing Thakore and Ors.