Shivram Laxman Morbekar v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8351 OF 2024 Shivram Laxman Morbekar ..

Petitioner V/s.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors ..

Respondents ------------------- Mr. Suresh Kamble, for the Petitioner.

Mr. B. V. Sawant, for Addl GP with M. S. Bane, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 5.

by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date:

2026.01.07 19:34:20 +0530 VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD --------------------

CORAM

:

MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

DATE :

6TH JANUARY 2026.

PC:

1.

Heard.

2.

When the petition is called out for hearing, learned AGP seeks time to take instructions.

3.

Having perused the contents of the petition and upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we find that limited relief is sought in this petition.

4.

The petitioner had submitted applications dated 31st October, 2022 and 22nd August, 2023, before the respondent No.5-Tahsildar seeking a clarification with regard to the extent of land acquired for

respondent No.4 from Survey No.243, Hissa No.1A and Survey No.243, Hissa No.1B in Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. According to the petitioner, if the exercise of measurement is carried out, it would come out with clarity as to the extent of land acquired from the said survey numbers and the balance land remaining, if any, and in that context the revenue entries could be accordingly mutated. 5.

We find that despite the applications having been preferred by the petitioner in the years 2022 and 2023, there is no response from the respondents. We do not think that there is any necessity to adjourn the present petition only for the learned AGP to take instructions, for the reason that the limited relief sought by the petitioner deserves to be granted. While disposing of the petition we do not intend to make any comments on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner and appropriate direction would be enough to satisfy the grievance raised in the present petition.

6.

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Accordingly respondent No.2 (Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Center No.3, Panvel, Raigad), and Respondent No.5 (Tahsildar, Panvel, Raigad) are directed to decide applications dated 31st October, 2022 and 22nd August, 2023 filed by

the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. In the process, Respondent No.5-Tahsildar, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad shall ensure the appropriate exercise of measurement is undertaken so that the extent of land acquired from the aforesaid survey numbers is specifically identified.

7.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)