Bombay High CourtWP/1035/2019dismissedrule discharged

Suresh Pundlikrao Navthale (Died) Thr. Lrs., Smt. Shobha Sureshrao Navthale And ORS v. Additional Commissioner, Amravati And Others

2019-03-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp1035.19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1035/2019 Suresh Pundlikrao Navthale through L.Rs. Smt. Shobha Sureshrao Navthale and others ..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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.A. Dhawas, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. T.H. Khan, A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATE : 6.3.2019.

The petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the subordinate Authorities under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and deleting their names from the the revenue records relating to the agricultural land in question i.e. Gat No.149 (Old Survey No.59) allotted to Suresh Pundlikrao Navthale (husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4). In the impugned order, it is recorded that the allotment was cancelled by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal and Sub-Divisional Officer, Daryapur by order dated 29th April, 1978 and name of Suresh Pundlikrao Navthale was deleted from the list of allottees on 20th November, 1979. The petitioners have not been able to point out that the above order dated 29th April, 1978 and the consequential deletion of name of Suresh Pundlikrao Navthale from the list of allottees were challenged. It being so, the petitioners have no

2 wp1035.19 right to contend that their names should be continued in the revenue record showing them as owners / allottees of the land in question. The impugned orders cannot be faulted with. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE Tambaskar.