Raakesh Rajednrakumar Agarwal v. State Of Maharashtra Thr Revenue Minister And ORS

Prasad Rajput IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.14675 OF 2024 Raakesh Rajendrakumar Agarwal .. Petitioner

Versus

State Of Maharashtra Thr. Revenue Minister and Ors.

.. Respondents ....................

 Mr. Kishor Patil a/w Mr. Amol Mhatre and Ms. Sonal Dabholkar, Advocates for Petitioner.

 Mr. Rajesh Kachare i/by Mr. Dilip Shinde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3/1 to 3/8.

 Ms. Molina Thakur, AGP for Respondent - State. ...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : JUNE 17, 2025 P. C.

:

1.

Heard Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Kachare, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.3/1 to 3/8 and Ms. Thakur, learned AGP for Respondent - State.

2.

Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Petitioner would submit that he needs to implead Budhaji Laxman Kumbhare as Respondent No.3(8) in the cause title of the Petition primarily because he is also one of the legal heirs of deceased Laxman Babu Kumbhare and inadvertently his name was left out when the legal heirs of Laxman Babu Kumbhare were impleaded as respondents previously. Amendment to that effect is permitted and directed to be carried out forthwith in the presence of Court itself. Re-verification stands dispensed with.

3.

Petitioner and private Respondents have executed consent terms dated 17.06.2025 in the present Writ Petition. Consent terms are taken on record and marked as Exhibit "X" for identification purpose. 3.1.

Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5), 3(6), 3(7) and 3(8) are all present in Court before me. They all have been identified by their Advocates Mr. Patil and Mr. Kachare before me. They consent to have executed the consent terms. 3.2.

Primarily by virtue of consent terms, parties have agreed to comply with implementing the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Revenue Minister by jointly approaching Competent Authority namely the Collector for seeking statutory permission under the provisions of Section 36 read with 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and accordingly decide their interse rights in respect of subject property which is the subject matter of present Writ Petition namely land bearing Survey No.185 Hissa No.2 situated at Chandrapada, Taluka Vasai, District Palghar (said property). 3.3.

Consent terms are contained in 19 pages. 7/12 Extract of the said property is appended at page No.10. Consent terms from page No.1 to 9 upto the execution clause are scanned and reproduced hereinbelow:-

4.

Ms. Thakur, learned AGP appears for Respondent namely State and its functionaries. Copy of the consent terms is given to her. She has perused the same. She has no objection. There is no impediment in my opinion after going through the consent terms in view of the agreement between the parties to approach the Collector as stated in paragraph No.13.3 of the consent terms. 5.

Private parties namely Petitioners and legal heirs of Respondent No.3 who have entered into the Consent terms undertake to abide by the rights and obligations mentioned in the consent terms. Their undertaking in the Consent terms is taken as undertaking given to the Court.

6.

Order is passed in terms of Consent terms hereinabove. 7.

Writ Petition No.14675 of 2025 is disposed in above terms.

P.R. Rajput [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]