Dismissed

Arvind Deoram Atram v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Bombay HC22 Jan 2024WP/49/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tribal petitioner sought mandamus to reopen land transfer proceedings based on a Tahsildar's advisory note that the 1974 transfer was wrong, though proceedings had concluded at the Divisional Commissioner level and possession was handed over. The Court held the Tahsildar lacked power to issue advisory notes and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Arvind Deoram Atram vs the State of Maharashtra through… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

18wp49-24

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

18 WRIT PETITION NO. 49 OF 2024

ARVIND DEORAM ATRAM

….Petitioner

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶8

…..Respondent

¶9

Mr. Latange Vijay Prabhakarrao, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for the Respondents State

¶10

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 23rd January, 2024

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

The Petitioner claims to be a tribal. A registered sale deed was recorded at No. 177/1969, dated 14.02.1969 by the ancestors of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was not even born in 1969. He is 45 years of age today. The proceedings had reached the Tahsildar, who passed an order in 1977. A further proceeding was taken to the Additional District Collector, who passed an order in 1994. Thereafter, again the matter was taken to the Additional District Collector and an appeal to the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, who passed an order in 2014. The litigation journey as prescribed under the Maharashtra Restoration of Land to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 has been followed.

¶13

Page 1 of 2

¶14

The possession is admittedly handed over. The Petitioner is before us on the ground that the some Tahsildar opined (in his wisdom) that there was a wrong transfer of land. There was no statutory proceeding pending before the Tahslidar and the 1974 Act does not empower the Tahsildar to issue an advisory note. In this backdrop, it is too much for the asking that this Court should exercise it's Writ jurisdiction by issuing a Writ of Mandamus and reopen the proceedings on the basis of an opinion of the Tahsildar, when the legal proceedings have travelled up to the the Additional Divisional Commissioner.

¶15

In view of the above this petition cannot be entertained and the same is, therefore, dismissed .

¶16

( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

¶17

JPChavan

¶18

Page 2 of 2

Arvind Deoram Atram v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Arvind Deoram Atram v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxman Dnyaneshwar Aware Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Vijay Sobhagchand Pagariya Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Prakash Kamlakar Pathak Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Others

Rameshwar Majur Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit through the Chairman Laxmikant Narayan Hange vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Others

Kanifnath Majur Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit through Its Secretary Sudam Gahininath Sanap vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Others

Shubham Mohan Vanjare and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship and Others