Bombay High CourtWP/782/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Ramesh S/O Zingar Gharde And Anothers v. The Collector, Gondia And Others

2016-04-22Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi1 pages

1/1 wp782.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 782 OF 2016 Ramesh S/o Zingar Gharde and another -vsThe Collector, Gondia and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. M.M.Sudame, counsel for the petitioners.

Mrs.Geeta Tiwari, AGP for the respondents CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 22.04.2016.

By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the entries in 7/12 Extract, recorded by the respondent No.2-District Superintendent of Land Records by the order, dated 10/06/2013. It is the case of the petitioners that though the petitioners have a share in the property, the respondent No.2 illegally did not include the names of the petitioners while making the entries in the 7/12 Extract by the order dated 10/06/2013. It is submitted that since there is a mistake in recording the entries in the 7/12 Extract, a direction is necessary against the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to correct the entries.

If there is a mistake in recording of entries by the respondent No.2, the petitioners have an alternate remedy of challenging the entries in an appeal under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Instead of availing the alternate remedy, the petitioners have rushed to this Court seeking a direction against the respondent Nos.1 to 4. Also, it is notable that the petitioners have not joined the other persons whose names are mutated in the Revenue Records as party respondents to this petition. In view of the existence of an alternate remedy, we decline to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. The points raised in the petition are kept open. JUDGE JUDGE KHUNTE