Murdeshwar Devasthan Trust Through Its Vice President Manohar Namdeo Gurav Bachate v. The Honble Minister Revenue And Forest Department And Others

2024:BHC-AUG:26758 ( 1 ) {wp7466.24}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 57 WRIT PETITION NO. 7466 OF 2024 MURDESHWAR DEVASTHAN TRUST THROUGH ITS VICE PRESIDENT MANOHAR NAMDEO GURAV BACHATE

VERSUS

THE HONBLE MINISTER REVENUE AND FOREST DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS Mr.R.D. Biradar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.N. Lokhande, AGP for the respondent-State. Mr.M.P. Bhaskar, Advocate for respondent No. 2(a).

CORAM

: KISHORE C. SANT, J.

DATE : 11.11.2024 PC :- 01.

Heard parties. At the outset, learned Advocate for respondent No. 2(a) questions maintainability of the petition on the ground of delay and laches. The petitioner in the petition challenged an order dated 16.05.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue), Mantralaya, thereby allowing the revision filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 6. By way of the impugned judgment and order, the learned Minister has quashed and set aside order dated 04.07.2002 passed by the Dy. Director of Land Records, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad and restored order dated 31.08.2000 passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records, Latur. The learned Advocates for the respondent thus submits that the petition filed in 2024 suffers from delay and laches. There is no explanation offered in the petition for filing the petition after a period of about six years. The reply filed by the respondent is taken on record.

( 2 ) {wp7466.24} 02.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued the petition. He submits that ultimately the Hon'ble Minister has passed the order, which is against the law. When the case is considered on merits, the question of technical ground of delay and laches would not come in way. Therefore, the learned Advocate for the petitioner prays for allowing the petition.

03.

Even considering this petition on merits, this Court does not find any reason to call for interference in the impugned judgment and order. Therefore, this petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as well as on merits with no order as to costs. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2024/nov24/wp7466.24