Prakash Santosh Ahire And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:31317 904-wp-8445-2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 904 WRIT PETITION NO.8445 OF 2025 1.

Prakash Santosh Ahire 2.

Kailash Santosh Ahire .. Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra Through Revenue Secretary Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.

The District Collector, Collectorate Office, Aurangabad District Aurangabad.

3.

Sub Divisional Officer Kannad, Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad.

4.

Sadhana Vardhaman Jain 5.

Nikita Vardhaman Jain 6.

Raju Lakshaman Rathod .. Respondents ...

Mr. Vilas B. Giri, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. K. Tambe, Addl. GP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. ...

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

DATE : 14 NOVEMBER 2025 ORDER :

.

Present petition has been filed for following reliefs :- "a.Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Direction thereby directing the Respondent No.2 Collector to decide the Petitioner's Application under [1]

904-wp-8445-2025.odt Section 36A of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and to pass an appropriate order thereon, as early as expeditiously in the interest of justice;

b.

That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue rule and call for record and proceedings/application which is pending before the Respondent No.3 Sub-Divisional Officer Kannad, District Aurangabad, as early as expeditiously in the interest of justice."

2.

Learned Additional Government Pleader waives notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. There is no necessity to issue notice to the other respondents.

3.

Upon instructions from respondent No.3, learned Additional Government Pleader makes a statement that the said application filed by the petitioner on 28.07.2022 would be decided within a period of four months, taking into consideration the coming elections wherein respondent No.3 would be busy.

4.

We dispose of this writ petition by directing respondent No.3 to decide the said application within a period of four months from today. 5.

If he fails to decide the application within the aforesaid period, then he would be liable for further action.

[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE scm [2]