Vijay Jaysingrao Patil v. Tukaram Balkrishna Jadhav
Case brief
What is this about?
Bombay High Court, Second Appeal No. 13 of 2025 (with I.A. No. 141 of 2025), Gauri Godse, J., decided 29 January 2025. Plaintiff's second appeal against concurrent dismissal of declaration suit challenging bindingness of royalty-and-penalty order under Section 48(7), Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966, for alleged illegal excavation from Gat No. 1335/1; defendant no. 17 Tahsildar sought to be restrained from recovery. Court upheld validity of the S.48(7) order (notice and reply preceded it), held burden of proving excavation within permissions lay on the unchallenging plaintiff, found permissions/receipts insufficient, held re-appreciation impermissible under Section 100 CPC and no substantial question of law arose; appeal dismissed, interim application infructuous. No precedents cited; no monetary quantum stated.
What did the court decide?
The appellant's contention that the impugned order is not an order under sub-section (7) of Section 48 of MLRC has no substance; the order is such an order.