Tukaram Sudam Jadhav And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:3239-DB 1 919.WP-1988-2018.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 919 WRIT PETITION NO. 1988 OF 2018 TUKARAM SUDAM JADHAV AND ANOTHER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS .....

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Kale Gopal D. Addl.GP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.S.Dande Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. Madhav N.Kalyane Advocate for Respondent No.6 : Mr.A.D.Ostwal ...

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.

DATE : 31st JANUARY 2025 PER COURT :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2.

Petitioner has a case that plot in dispute was allotted to him and on one fine morning, the record of village panchayat was corrected and it was allotted to respondent no.6. He has a case that the said plot was allotted to him under the project affected scheme. However, there is not a single document placed on record to show out that plot in question was allotted to him under the project affected scheme.

3.

The revenue officer has taken a drive to remove unauthorized encroachments. In that drive, the encroachment of the petitioner was removed. Petitioners have already approached to the civil court and

2 919.WP-1988-2018.doc matter is pending.

4.

The petition is simply for directing the revenue officer to consider his representation dated 01.02.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that representation was regarding the restoration of possession. Whether the possession of the petitioner was legal or not is a question seized with the civil court. Therefore, no such direction can be granted. We are not satisfied that the petitioners have a case to consider in writ jurisdiction. 5.

Hence, writ petition stands dismissed.

6.

All Civil Applications stand disposed of.

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] [ S. G. MEHARE, J.] vsj..