Sitaram Sankar Patil vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sitaram Sankar Patil vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to decide the petitioner's Revision Application within three months of receiving a copy of the order; any request for interim relief to be considered within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order, after hearing all parties; contentions of parties kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct respondent no.1 (State) to decide the petitioner's Revision Application under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, filed in August 2024, within a stipulated period. +1 more

Court's answer

Accepting the Additional Government Pleader's statement, the writ petition was disposed of by directing respondent no.1 to decide the petitioner's Revision Application within a period of three months of receiving a copy of the order; all contentions of the parties were kept open.

Ratio / Principle

The Court accepted the petitioner's statement not pressing the condonation of delay application and observed that the Revision Application had been filed shortly after a copy of the impugned order was received by the petitioner.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner makes a request for grant of interim relief, the same shall be considered within a period of four weeks of receiving a copy of the order, after hearing all the parties.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Chandurkar & Sathaye, JJ.) disposed of a writ petition in which the petitioner, whose appeal S.R.106/2022/24 under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Land Records by order dated 22 March 2024, sought early decision of his Revision Application under Section 257 of the Code preferred before the State Government in August 2024. The application for condonation of delay was not pressed in view of the Supreme Court decision in Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale, (2009) 9 SCC 352, and the Court recorded that the Revision Application was filed shortly after a copy of the impugned order was received. Directing respondent no.1 to decide the Revision Application within three months of receiving a copy of the order, the Court further directed that any request for interim relief be considered within four weeks, after hearing all parties, keeping all contentions open.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.287 OF 2025

Sitaram Sankar Patil .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors. .. Respondents

Mr. Sumedh S. Modak, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. N.C. Walimbe, Additional Government Pleader with Mr. Y.D. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ DATE : 27^TH JANUARY 2025.

P.C. :

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 22^nd March 2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Land Records in Appeal S.R.106/2022/24, that was filed under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, has been challenged by preferring a Revision Application before the State Government under Section 257 of the Code. According to him, the Revision Application having been filed in August, 2024, this jurisdiction has been invoked within a reasonable period. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and Ors. Vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and Ors., (2009) 9 SCC 352, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the application for condonation of delay filed along with the Revision

1/2

23-WP-287-2025.doc Dixit

Application. The statement is accepted. It is seen that the Revision Application has been filed shortly after copy of the impugned order was received by the petitioner.

Pursuant to the order dated 16^th January 2025 passed by this Court, the learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the petitioner’s Revision Application would be decided within a period of three months from receipt of a copy of this order.

Accepting aforesaid statement, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no.1 to decide the petitioner’s Revision Application within a period of three months of receiving copy of this order. All contentions of parties are kept open. If a request is made by the petitioner for grant of interim relief, the same shall be considered within a period of four weeks of receiving copy of this order. The same be done after hearing all the parties.

[ M.M. SATHAYE, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]

Digitally signed by SNEHA SNEHAABHAY 23-WP-287-2025.doc ABHAY DIXIT Dixit DIXIT Date:2025.01.29 16:05:10 +0530

2/2