Sunita Maruti Dhakane v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

1 wp 4670.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4670 OF 2016 Sunita Wd/o. Maruti Dhakane .. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri Shrimant Mundhe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. A. Shinde, A. G. P. for All Respondents. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K. K. SONAWANE, JJ.

DATE : 26TH APRIL, 2016.

PER COURT :

.

Mr. Mundhe, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of the decree of the Civil Court in favour of the petitioner, the respondent Authorities are not mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue record. As the name of the petitioner is not mutated, the benefits under the relevant Government Schemes are not being extended to the petitioner. Even, the Collector had directed the Tahasildar to take steps pursuant to the decree and submit the report. The said letter was issued on 12.12.2015, as yet no steps are taken. 2.

Pursuant to the dispute before the Civil Court, the petitioner claims right to get her name mutated in the relevant

2 wp 4670.16 revenue record.

3.

The petitioner has a grievance with regard to the mutation. In light of that, the petitioner may approach the Committee constituted in this regard vide Circular dated 13.02.2015. In case, the Committee receives such an application, the Committee shall look into the said grievance and shall decide the said grievance expeditiously and preferably within a period of three

(3) months from the date of receipt of the such application. The petitioner is at liberty to take benefits of schemes as may be permissible as per law, in case her name is mutated in the relevant revenue record. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/April 16