Bhagubai Bhaurao Bhandare And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2416 OF 2017 1) Bhagubai Bhaurao Bhandare, Age 61 years, 2) Yashoda Markas Salve, Age 51 years, 3) Santosh Rambhau Bhandare, Age 41 years, 4) Ravi Rambhau Khandagle, Age 34 years, 5) Sitabai Rambhau Khandagle Deceased 5A) Sangita Ambadas Khandagle Age 36 years, 6) Pappubai Kachru Jodgand Age 61 years, All Occu. Agril., All R/o Kolgaon, Tq. Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar, through G.P.A. Holder No.5A i.e. Sangita Ambadas Khandagle, Age 36 years, Occu. Agril., R/o Kolgaon, Tq. Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar.

...

PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1) The State of Maharashtra through its Department of Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai

2) Sub-Divisional Officer, Pathardi, Tq. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar 3) Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Shevgaon, Tq. Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar.

(Copy to be served on Govt.

Pleader Office, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 4) Arjun Chatura Khandagale, Age 40 years, Occu. Kotwal, R/o Kolgaon, Tq. Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar.

...

RESPONDENTS .....

Shri Y.V. Kakde, Advocate for petitioners Shri A.V. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 .....

CORAM:

S. B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED:

27th February, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Heard. Issue notice to respondent Nos.1 to 3 for final disposal. Learned A.G.P. waives service for respondent Nos.1 to

3. There is no need to issue any notice to respondent No.4, the reason being that administrative orders are being sought to be challenged in this petition. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith

and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2.

The order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer on 18/2/2015 as well as on 2/7/2016, seeking review of the order dated 18/2/2015, are purely administrative and, therefore, the petitioners would have no locus standi to challenge these orders.

3.

In fact, the grievance of the petitioners that name of Chatru Natha has been wrongly shown in the cultivator's column in 7/12 extract in respect of Gat No.178 and, therefore, it be removed, has been more than redressed in his favour when Tahsildar, Shevgaon passed order on 19/9/2013, directing deletion of name of Chatru Natha from the cultivator's column. If the main grievance has been redressed, the petitioners now cannot say that administrative authorities must use their discretion in punishing the wrong-doers only in the manner desired by the petitioners. The administrative authorities have, in their discretion, imposed some punishment upon the wrongdoers and it is not for the petitioners, who are rank outsiders for such matter, to say that the punishment is not sufficient. If the punishment is thought to be insufficient if at all it is, it would be

only for the concerned administrative authority to say so. 4.

In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition. Writ Petition stands dismissed with costs. Rule is discharged.

( S. B. SHUKRE ) JUDGE fmp/wp2417.17