Dismissed¶26

Panditrao Munjaji Chokhat v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC10 Nov 2025PIL/59/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL dismissed for want of public interest. Alleged illegal mutation (1997) of names in Municipal Council Property Extract Register, Manwat, concerning Khandeshwar Mahadev Temple property; petitioner failed to show temple's Trust status, delayed filing until 2017 without pleading date of knowledge, and did not implead the mutators despite Municipal Council letter dated 15.05.2015. Keywords: Khandeshwar Mahadev Temple; Nagar Parishad Manwat; mutation 1997; non-joinder; Parbhani; Aurangabad Bench.

What did the court decide?

There is no public interest involved in the matter and, therefore, the Public Interest Litigation stands dismissed. ¶26

Panditrao Munjaji Chokhat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to conduct an inquiry into the allegedly illegally mutated names of some persons from Manwat City in the ownership column of the Municipal Council Property Extract Register, the property belonging to Khandeshwar Temple (Mahadev Temple).

¶21

Court's answer

There is no public interest involved in the matter and, therefore, the Public Interest Litigation stands dismissed.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner did not clarify whether the Khandeshwar Mahadev Temple is a Trust; if it were a Trust, documents regarding it as Trust property would be available with the appropriate authority.

¶26

Key takeaways

The mutation was carried out in 1997 while the petition was sought to be filed in 2017, and there is no pleading as to when the petitioner acquired knowledge of the mutation.ratio¶26
Although the Municipal Council informed the petitioner by letter dated 15.05.2015 as to how the mutation was carried out, the petitioner did not make those persons party respondents.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public Interest Litigation No. 59 of 2017 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench; coram Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.; decided 10 November 2025) - Petitioner, an agriculturist and social worker of Manwat (Dist. Parbhani), sought a direction to the respondent authorities to inquire into names allegedly illegally mutated in 1997 in the ownership column of the Municipal Council Property Extract Register in respect of property belonging to Khandeshwar Mahadev Temple. The Municipal Council had earlier told him the relevant entry was deleted on 22.07.1997 pursuant to a partition deed and affidavit of one Mr. Raviraj Radhakisan Chandak, and that the 18-20 year old file could not be traced. DISMISSED: the Court found no public interest involved - the petitioner neither clarified whether the temple is a Trust nor pleaded when he learnt of the 1997 mutation, and he did not implead the persons who effected the mutation even after the Municipal Council's letter dated 15.05.2015 explained how it was carried out.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:30902-DB

¶2

48-pil-59-2017.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.59 OF 2017

¶5

Panditrao s/o Munjaji Chokhat Age: 59 years, Occu.: Agri. And Social Work, R/o. Rachana Colony, Manwat, Tq. Manwat, Dist. Parbhani .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶8

The Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-431 032.

¶9

The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

¶10

The Collector, Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Manwat, Tq. Manwat, District Parbhani.

¶12

The Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad, Manwat, Tq. Manwat, District Parbhani. .. Respondents

¶13

Mr. R. J. Nirmal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for the respondents/State.

¶14

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

¶15

HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

¶16

DATE : 10 NOVEMBER 2025

[1]

48-pil-59-2017.odt

ORDER :

. Heard learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner.

¶21

The petitioner prays for direction to the respondent authorities to conduct an inquiry regarding illegally mutated names of some persons from Manwat City in ownership column in the Municipal Council Property Extract Register, since the said property is belonging to Khandeshwar Temple (Mahadev Temple).

¶22

The petitioner, who alleges to be an agriculturist and social worker, submits that certain persons have mutated their names in Municipal Council record in respect of property belonging to Khandeshwar Mahadev Temple in the year 1997. The petitioner had made many representations to Collector, Tahsildar and other authorities as well as Municipal Council, Manwat. His prayer has not been considered.

¶23

The learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken us through all the documents. He submits that the Municipal Council informed him that the entry of house property having Khandeshwar shop and Warehouse was deleted on 22.07.1997 in view of the partition deed and the affidavit of one Mr. Raviraj Radhakisan Chandak, however, they could not get the file which was 18 to 20 years old.

¶24

[2]

¶25

48-pil-59-2017.odt

¶26

The first and the foremost fact that is required to be considered is that the present petition has been filed as Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner has not clarified as to whether the said Khandeshwar Mahadev Temple is a Trust. If it is a Trust, then certainly there would be availability of document regarding it as a Trust property with the appropriate authority. Another fact that is required to be noted is that the mutation has been carried out in the year 1997 and the present petition has been tried to be filed in 2017. There is absolutely no pleading as to when the petitioner got the knowledge about the mutation that was carried out. Thereafter, when he was informed by the Municipal Council by letter dated 15.05.2015 as to how the mutation was carried out, yet he has not made those persons as party respondents. There is no public interest involved in the matter and, therefore, the Public Interest Litigation stands dismissed.

¶27

[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

scm

¶29

[3]

Panditrao Munjaji Chokhat v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panditrao Munjaji Chokhat v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan Parshuram Bhoge and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary and Ors.

Bhagwan Parshuram Bhoge and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary and Ors.

Deepak Ramdas Mogal and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Thr Secretary and Ors.

Shekh Shoab Gafurmohmad vs the Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs

Kamlakar Ratnakar Shenoy vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and Anr.

Joshi Shivshankar Jatashankar vs the Secretary Law and Judiciary and 9 Ors.

Zaheer Abbas Ahmed Husain Oomatia and Anr. vs Municipal Corpration of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Nadeem R. Kapoor vs the State of Maharashtra and 23 Ors.

Tapi Valley Agro Food Products Company Dondaicha vs Dondaicha Warwade Nagar Parishad Dondaicha and Others

Vilas Kalu Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Others

Godavari Manar Charitable Trust through Its President Vs the Union of India through Secretory and Others

Akanksha Rohidas Nikam vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Aadat Market Association Nilanga Thr Its Secretary K.V. More vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajanna Alias Rajaram Linganna Tokalwad Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretory and Others