Arjun S/O. Gulabrao Dorle vs Collector, Nagpur and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Arjun S/O. Gulabrao Dorle vs Collector, Nagpur and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Expunging of the word 'blackmail' from paragraph No.6 of the impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2024 of the Member (Judicial), Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur; writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the observations in paragraph No.6 of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's final judgment and order dated 13.12.2024 (Ceiling Appeal No. APL/Ceiling/NGP-04/2023) labelling the petitioner's conduct as 'blackmailing' were warranted and should be expunged.

Court's answer

There is no material on record to arrive at any conclusion to straightway brand the petitioner's conduct as blackmailing tactics, and the contentions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner remain uncontroverted.

Ratio / Principle

The observations about the conduct of the petitioner as a 'blackmailing' tactics are without any basis and need to be expunged.

Key takeaways

The writ petition is allowed and the word 'blackmail' from paragraph No.6 of the impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Member (Judicial), Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, is directed to be expunged.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.3514 of 2025 (Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench; decided 06.02.2026; Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.) — Arjun s/o Gulabrao Dorle v. Collector, Nagpur and others. The petitioner's sole grievance was the observation in paragraph No.6 of the final judgment and order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Member (Judicial), Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, in Ceiling Appeal No. APL/Ceiling/NGP-04/2023, labelling his conduct as 'blackmailing' the respondent. Holding that there was no material on record to brand the petitioner's conduct as blackmailing tactics and that his contentions remained uncontroverted (contesting respondent Nos.4 and 5 absent despite notice and the adjournment of 04.02.2026), the Court found the observation without basis, allowed the petition to the limited extent of expunging the word 'blackmail' from paragraph No.6 of the impugned order, and disposed of the petition with no order as to costs.

1 44. WP 3514 of 2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO.3514 OF 2025

ARJUN S/O. GULABRAO DORLE VERSUS

COLLECTOR, NAGPUR AND OTHERS

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's orders Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

Mr. D.G. Paunikar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. H.R. Dhumale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3-State.

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

DATED : 06^th FEBRUARY 2026

PER COURT :-

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner as well as learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3-State.

The petitioner’s limited grievance in the instant petition is the observations in paragraph No.6, recorded by the Member (Judicial), Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, in its final judgment and order dated 13.12.2024, passed in Ceiling Appeal No. APL/Ceiling/NGP-04/2023, labeling the conduct of the appellant therein (petitioner herein) as ‘blackmailing’ the respondent.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the controversy before the Tribunal was with respect to the sale deed and

2 44. WP 3514 of 2025.odt

mutation of the property and observations about the conduct of the petitioner by labeling his conduct as a blackmailing tactics is absolutely unwarranted and without any basis.

Notice of this petition was served on all the respondents, however, nobody appears on behalf of contesting respondent Nos.4 and 5. By order dated 04.02.2026, in order to afford one opportunity to the contesting respondents, the matter was adjourned for today. Today, nobody appears on behalf of the contesting respondents.

As regards the grievance raised by the petitioner about labeling his conduct as a ‘blackmailing’ tactics, it appears that there is no material on record to arrive at any conclusion to straightway brand the petitioner’s conduct as a blackmailing tactics. Even the contentions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner remain uncontroverted. I, therefore, find that the observations about the conduct of the petitioner as a ‘blackmailing’ tactics is without any basis and needs to be expunged.

In view of the above, I find this to be a fit case where indulgence is warranted with the impugned order to the limited extent of expunging the said observation. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the word ‘blackmail’ from paragraph No.6 of the

3 44. WP 3514 of 2025.odt

impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2024, passed by Member

(Judicial), Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, shall be expunged.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with no order

as to costs.

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

asd