Umesh S/O Laxman Ghawat v. Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati And Others

(1) 2wp846.25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.846/2025 Umesh Laxman Ghawat .Vs. Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. M. V. Bute, Advocate for petitioner.

CORAM :

ANIL L. PANSARE, J.

DATE :

FEBRUARY 28, 2025 On 17.02.2025, following order was passed.

"The petitioner has challenged order dated 9/9/2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, in Revision Application No. 187/RTS-59/ Ghurswadi/Akola/2023, thereby upholding order of Additional Collector, Akola, who has set aside order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akola.

2] The issue arises out of the mutation entry, which, according to the petitioner, was certified by the Talathi in his favour on the basis of sale deed executed by one Shobha Patkar in his favour.

3] The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the original owner of the property under question is/was respondent no.6 - Shaligram Maroti Ghawat (now represented by legal representatives). He sold the property to one Mr. Rajkumarji Bhise, who, in turn, allotted the property to Shobha by way of oral partition, which, though recognized by the Talathi, but not by the Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner.

4] The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks time to place on record partition deed, which, though not registered, was allegedly executed by Rajkumarji Bhise in favour of Shobha Patkar and also to place on record judgment of this Court. Granted.

5] Stand over to 20/2/2025."

2.

As could be seen, counsel for the petitioner sought time to place on record partition deed which, though not registered, was allegedly executed by Rajkumarji Bhise in favour of Shobha Patkar and also to place on record judgment of this Court.

(2) 2wp846.25 3.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the partition deed is not available with the petitioner. He has further not produced copy of judgment, which speaks volumes about the petitioner's conduct. In other words, there is no merit in the petition. 4.

The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Anil L. Pansare, J.) Kahale