← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/868/2015disposed off

Ranjan Bhausaheb Dombe v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Dept. Of Revenue And ORS.

2016-09-14Hon'Ble Shri Justice A. K. Menon,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.S. Oka2 pages

ash wp-868.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.868 OF 2015 Ranjan Bhausaheb Dombe.

..

Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra and Others.

..

Respondents - Shri Sarang S. Aradhye for the Petitioner.

Shri Manish Pabale, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. -- CORAM :

A.S. OKA & A.K. MENON, JJ DATED :

14TH SEPTEMBER 2016 P.C.

1.

Today the learned AGP has produced for perusal of the Court an order dated 17th March 2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pandharpur. The said order records that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pandharpur has exercised the powers under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. By the said order, he has directed the Tahsildar, Pandharpur to hold a fresh inquiry as regards the Mutation Entry Nos.4948, 13075, 13451, 13947, 15085, 17289 and 17786 in respect of the lands bearing Gat No.103/1 at Village Kasegaon, Taluka- Pandharpur. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner on instructions of the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was not aware of the said order dated 17th March 2015. We direct the learned AGP to provide a copy of the said order dated 17th March 2015 to the Petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner

ash wp-868.15 states that the Petitioner will co-operate with the Tahsildar, Pandharpur for holding an inquiry in terms of the order dated 17th March 2015. We accept the said statement.

2.

The learned AGP on instructions of Shri Nagesh Patil, Tahsildar, Pandharpur, states that in view of the statement made by the Petitioner, the said Tahsildar will complete the inquiry in terms of the order dated 17th March 2015 within a period of three months from today. We accept the said statement made by the said Tahsildar, Pandharpur.

3.

By accepting the statements of the Petitioner as well as the Tahsildar, Pandharpur as their undertakings, we dispose of the Petition. We, however, make it clear that we have not made any adjudication about the merits of the controversy in this Petition. (A.K. MENON, J) ( A.S. OKA, J )