Bombay High CourtWP/6703/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Kausalyabai Wd/O Narayanrao Charde And Others v. Tahsildar, Deoli Tah. Deoli, Wardha And Another

2016-11-29Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi2 pages

2911wp6703.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.6703/2016 Kausalyabai wd/o Narayanrao Charde and others ...Versus...

Tahsildar, Deoli, Tah. Deoli, District Wardha and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.V. Sohoni, Advocate for petitioners Ms Tajwar Khan, AGP for respondents CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 29.11.2016 By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction against the Tahsildar, Deoli to decide the application made by the petitioners for mutation of the name of the petitioners in the revenue record.

According to the petitioners, though the husband of the petitioner no.1 had made an application on 27.12.1999 for mutation of his name in the revenue record, the said application is not decided till date.

We find that the petition suffers from laches. If the application was made in the year 1999 and it was not decided, the petitioners should have approached this Court within a reasonable time. It would be now difficult for the Tahsildar to find out whether an application was really made by the husband of the petitioner no.1 in the year 1999 and decide the same.

2911wp6703.16.odt The learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners would file a fresh application within two weeks and the Tahsildar may be directed to decide the same within a reasonable time.

The request made on behalf of the petitioners is just and reasonable. Hence, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Tahsildar to decide the application of the petitioners, if made within a period of two weeks, as early as possible and positively within six months.

Order accordingly. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar