Unnathi Associates vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Unnathi Associates vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Order dated 04.01.2024 impugned in both Writ Petitions quashed and set aside; Tahsildar, Thane directed to re-consider the matter and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law; Petitioners to be given due opportunity to present their case; merits kept open; Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Thane stand vitiated because the proceedings were decided more than two and a half years after the parties' arguments were heard.

Court's answer

The reason assigned by the Tahsildar (heavy workload) is not a justifiable reason for deciding the proceedings two and a half years after having heard the parties.

Ratio / Principle

The delay exceeding two and a half years in deciding the proceedings is the sole reason for setting aside the impugned order and directing the Tahsildar to re-consider the matter and decide the proceedings afresh in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

This Court has not examined the merits of the challenge; all points on merits are kept open.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (A.S. Chandurkar and M.M. Sathaye, JJ.), by common judgment dated 09.01.2025, allowed Writ Petition No. 9055 of 2024 (Deepak Vallabhji Dedhia) and Writ Petition No. 13963 of 2024 (Unnathi Associates) against The State of Maharashtra and Ors. The petitions challenged the order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Thane in proceedings under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Although arguments were heard on 18.08.2021, the proceedings were decided on 24.01.2024, i.e., after more than two and a half years. The Tahsildar's explanation of heavy workload was held not to be a justifiable reason. Relying on Anil Rai v/s. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318 and Pradeep v/s. State of Maharashtra (2007) 1 AIR Bom R 80, where it was observed that in such proceedings the order should be passed expeditiously, the Court held that the delay exceeding two and a half years was the sole reason for setting aside the impugned order. The order was quashed and set aside; the Tahsildar, Thane was directed to re-consider the matter and decide it expeditiously in accordance with law, giving the Petitioners due opportunity to present their case. The Court expressly did not examine the merits and kept all points on merits open. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.

1 36-WP-9055-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Digitally signed SNEHA by SNEHA NITIN NITIN CHAVANDate: CHAVAN 2025.01.1015:03:51 +0530

WRIT PETITION NO. 9055 OF 2024

Deepak Vallabhji Dedhia ...Petitioner

Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 13963 OF 2024

Unnathi Associates ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

Mr. Harshad Sathe a/w Deelip Satale i/b Saurabh Butala for the Petitioner in WP/9055/2024.

Mr. Harshad Sathe a/w Deelip Satale i/b Harshad Bhadbhade for the Petitioner in WP/13963/2024.

Mr. P.G. Sawant, Assistant Govt. Pleader for the Respondent/State.

CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR AND M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.

DATE : 9^th JANUARY 2025

P.C. :

Since the common issues have been decided by the common Judgment, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

In both these Writ Petitions, order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the Tahsildar and the Executive Magistrate, Thane in proceedings under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, are under challenge. The principal ground of challenge is that the arguments on

Sneha Chavan

1/3

2 36-WP-9055-2024.doc

behalf of the Petitioners were heard by the Tahsildar on 18.08.2021 and the proceedings were decided on 24.01.2024. In other words, on the ground that the proceedings were decided after a period of more than two and half years, it is submitted that the said order stands vitiated.

Affidavit-in-Reply has been filed by the concerned Tahsildar seeking to explain the reason for the delay in deciding the said proceedings. According to him, because of heavy workload, he could not decide the aforesaid proceedings. As he was due for transfer in January 2024, he took a review of all such matters in October 2023. When he noticed that these matters were not decided, he passed the impugned order on 24.01.2024.

We do not find that the reason assigned by the Tahsildar could be a justifiable reason for not deciding the proceedings after having heard the parties two and half years ago. The reference in this regard can be made to the decisions in Anil Rai v/s. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318 and Pradeep v/s. State of Maharashtra (2007) 1 AIR Bom R 80, wherein this Court has observed that in such proceedings, the order should be passed expeditiously.

In that view of the matter, we find that the delay caused in deciding the said proceedings which is exceeding two and half years would be the sole reason for setting aside the impugned order and directing the Tahsildar to re-consider the matter and decide the proceedings afresh in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the following order is passed. (i) The order dated 04.01.2024 impugned in both

Sneha Chavan

2/3

3 36-WP-9055-2024.doc

the Writ Petitions, is quashed and set aside.

(ii) The Tahsildar, Thane shall re-consider the matter and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.

(iii) The Petitioners shall be given due opportunity to present their case. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the challenge and all points on merits are kept open.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to

costs.

The parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

(A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)

Sneha Chavan

3/3