Jana Rama Digha vs Bhiva Dhaklya Digha and Ors.

orders dated 8 May 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, by which the private respondent’s revision application has been allowed by condoning the substantial delay of more than 30 years to 69 years as specifically pointed out in the memo of the petition. For convenience, we

¶21

Page 1 of 4 29/09/2025

¶22

P. V. Rane

¶23

302WP-12698-25GRP.DOC

¶24

note the relevant prayers as made in the first petition being Writ Petition No.12698 of 2025, which read thus:

¶25

“a)This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Hon’ble Minister for Revenue (Respondent No.16) before whom the Revision Application No.1337/2025 filed on 18.07.2025 by the Petitioners, to expedite the hearing and decide the said Revision Application and decide the same in any case within 3 months from the date of order of this Hon’ble Court.

¶26

b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Judgment and Order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the Ld. Addl. Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Revision Application No.294 of 2024 along with the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 passed by Ld. Additional Collector, Palghar, in Appeal No.107/2022 and further confirm the Order dated 21.12.2020 passed by the Assistant Collector Javhar in RTS Appeal No.23 of 2018 by confirming the Mutation Entry No. 890.

¶27

The grievance of the petitioner is that against such orders passed on 8 May 2025 by the Additional Commissioner, the petitioner has already approached the State Government by filing Revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code alongwith stay applications. Our attention is drawn to the said proceedings which are annexed to the petition at Exhibit A. Such proceedings are pending before the State Government that is before Hon’ble Minister, who is the Revisionary Authority. Although the proceedings were moved on several occasions, no orders are so far passed, even on the stay application, is the grievance of the petitioners. Today the urgency in the petition is that the order dated 8 May 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, is likely to be acted

¶28

upon inasmuch as the petitioners’ names are now sought to be removed from the revenue record. The contention as urged on behalf of the petitioner is that as already the revision applications alongwith the stay applications are filed and are

¶29

Page 2 of 4 29/09/2025

¶30

P. V. Rane

¶31

302WP-12698-25GRP.DOC

¶32

pending adjudication, such action ought not to be taken to remove the petitioners’ names from the revenue record.

¶33

Learned AGP would not dispute that such proceedings are pending, but submits that a reasonable time of six months be given for the State Government to decide such revision applications.

¶34

In this view of the matter, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that directions be issued to the State Government to decide the pending revision applications under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, as expeditiously as possible, and after granting the petitioners an opportunity of being heard on the stay application and appropriate orders be passed on such proceedings. It is also prayed that till appropriate orders are passed, no coercive action to be taken to remove the names of the petitioners from the revenue record. We agree with the petitioners.

¶35

In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that it is in the interest of justice that these three petitions can be conveniently disposed of in terms of the following orders:-

¶36

(i) The revision application filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner subject matter of each of these petitions, shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six months from today.

¶37

(ii) Till appropriate orders are passed either on the stay applications or on the revision applications, the official respondents namely the Assistant Collector,

¶38

Page 3 of 4 29/09/2025

¶39

P. V. Rane

¶40

302WP-12698-25GRP.DOC

¶41

Jawahar is directed not to undertake any mutation / action of removal of petitioners’ name from the revenue record, who shall be abide by the appropriate

¶42

orders which would be passed by the State Government. Ordered accordingly.

¶43