Bombay High CourtWP/9370/2021disposed off

Dikpalsingh Balaso Patil And ANR v. Ashok Keshav Sutar And ORS

2025-01-27Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne2 pages

Megha 24_wp_9370_2021.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9370 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1137 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9370 OF 2021 Dikpalsingh Balaso Patil and Anr.

...Petitioners

V/s.

Ashok Keshav Sutar and Ors.

...Respondents

______________ Mr. Aditya S. Raktade for the Petitioner with Ms. Aarti Shah for the Petitioners.

Ms. Kavita D. Vijapure i/b.Mr. D.V. Sutar for the Respondents. ______________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Dated : 27 January 2025.

P.C. :

1) Petition challenges order dated 23 February 2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Panhala,(SDO) rejecting Revision preferred by the Petitioners and confirming order dated 21 January 2017 passed by the Tahasildar, Panhala. Digitally signed by MEGHA SHREEDHAR PARAB Date:

2025.01.28 12:45:58 +0530 2) There is absolutely no justification for delay in filing the MEGHA SHREEDHAR PARAB present Petition. The SDO's order is passed on 23 February 2018 whereas the present Petition is filed on 29 January 2021. Page No.

1 of 27 January 2025

Megha 24_wp_9370_2021.docx The only justification sought to be pleaded in paragraph 5 under the heading 'concluding paragraphs' is that certified copy of the order was not provided to the Petitioners. For filing a Writ Petition it is not necessary to produce certified copy of the order. Beyond the pretext of delay in procuring the certified copy, no other reason is pleaded to justify the inordinate delay of three long years in filing the Petition. Petition is pending in this Court for last four long years without granting interim relief. Petitioners are directed to remove obstruction by order dated 21 January 2017. Period of 8 long years has elapsed since passing of impugned order of Tahasildar. Considering the delay and latches involved in filing the Petition coupled with the position that the Tahasildar's order is operational for the 8 long years, I am not inclined to entertain the present Petition. 3) Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.

4) In view of rejection of the Writ Petition, nothing would survive in the Interim Application and the same is also disposed of.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No.

2 of 27 January 2025