Bombay High CourtWP/6809/2022dismissed

Smt. Laxmi Chhagan Dhodi (Decd) Thru Lhrs And ANR v. Motibai Naryan Patel And ORS

2022-06-13Hon'Ble Shri Justice Nitin W. Sambre2 pages

31 WP-6809-2022.doc BDP-SPS-TAC BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6809 OF 2022 by BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2022.06.16 12:08:40 +0530 Smt. Laxmi Chhagan Dhodi (Deceased) Through His legal heirs 1-A) Mr. Ganesh Chhagan Dhodi and Others ..... Petitioners.

V/s Motilal Narayan Patel and Ors.

..... Respondents.

Mr. Sandeep Shinde i/b Pravin P. Mengane for the Petitioners. Mr. S.G. Karandikar for Respondent No.2.

Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent No.3.

CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE: JUNE 13, 2022 P.C.:- 1] Heard Mr. Shinde learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rayrikar learned AGP for respondents-State and Mr. Karandikar, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.

2] This Petition takes exception to the order dated 22.08.2012 passed by the learned President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai (for short 'Tribunal') in Tenancy Revision Application No.265/B/2012 and 132/B/2012 as also the order dated 29.03.2012 passed by the learned SubDivisional Officer, Mumbai Suburban District in DLN/TNC/A-1/2012. 3] Mr. Karandikar raised preliminary objection on the ground that the same order was also challenged in the following Petitions and the same were dismissed:

1/2

31 WP-6809-2022.doc (i) Writ Petition No.11337 of 2013 by Manjula Babu Dhodi and others was dismissed on 18.12.2013;

(ii) Writ Petition No.4675 of 2014 by Ravindra Babu Dhodi and others was dismissed on 06.05.2014; and (iii) Writ Petition No.8661 of 2017 by Navin Gopal Dhodi (decd) through LRs and others was rejected on 31.07.2017. 4] Mr. Karandikar, therefore, submitted that the present Petition is not maintainable.

5] Mr. Shinde was not in a position to controvert this position and show that the order passed by the Tribunal was not the subject matter of the challenge in the above Petitions. As the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is confirmed by this Court in three matters, referred hereinabove, I find merit in the objection of Mr. Karandikar. Hence, Petition fails and the same is dismissed.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. ) 2/2