Rakhmbai Bapu More And ORS. v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

2023:BHC-AS:30643 41-wp-6644-17.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6644 OF 2017 Rakhmbai Bapu More and Ors.

...Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

...Respondents

.........

Mr. Murlidhar L. Patil for the Petitioner.

Mr. Harshad Sathe for Respondent No.4.

Ms. M.S. Srivastava, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Ms. Sayali Bhaidkar for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. .........

CORAM

:

N.R. BORKAR, J.

DATED :

13 JUNE 2023 P.C. :- 1.

The petitioners being aggrieved by the action of consolidation officer of deleting their names from the revenue record bearing Gat No.134 at Village Varve - Budruk, Taluka - Bhor, District - Pune, had filed the appeal before the District Superintendent of Land Records (for short, DSLR). By the order dated 31 December 2012, the said appeal was allowed.

2.

The respondent No.4 herein being aggrieved by the order of the DSLR dated 31 December 2012 had filed appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records. The application for stay was filed Darshan P. Patil 1 / 2

41-wp-6644-17.odt and the same was rejected by order dated 30 April 2013. 3.

The respondent No.4 being aggrieved by the order rejecting the stay application had filed the revision before the State Government and the prayer was to set aside the order dated 30 April 2013 passed by the Deputy Director.

4.

The order passed by the DSLR dated 31 December 2012 was not under challenge before the State Government. 5.

Though the appeal filed by the respondent No.4 against the order passed by DSLR was pending before the Deputy Director, the State Government, by the order impugned has quashed the order passed by the DSLR. The impugned order, therefore, can not be allowed to stand. The impugned order dated 29 September 2015 is thus set aside. The Deputy Director shall decide the appeal filed by the respondent No.4 on it's own merits without being influenced by the order passed by the State Government.

6.

Till the decision of the appeal, parties shall maintain the status quo.

7.

The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) Darshan P. Patil 2 / 2