Shalik Shantaram Mhatre And ORS v. Lilavati Suganchand Lodha And ORS

77 Ia-10456-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10456 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5091 OF 2019 Shalik Shantaram Mhatre and Others.

...Petitioners.

Versus

Lilavati Suganchand Lodha and Others.

...Respondents.

------ Mr. Bhushan Walimbe and Sahil Pandire i/b Preeti Walimbe for the Petitioner. Mr. Tejas M. Deshpande for the Respondent No. 1 to 6. Ms. S. D. Chipade, AGP for the Respondent-State. ------ Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

Date : August 5, 2024.

P. C. :

1.

Heard.

2.

This application has been preferred for carrying out amendment to the petition.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Respondents had challenged the mutation entry after a delay of almost 24 years which delay was condoned by the SDO; the challenge as against which failed upto the State Government. He submits that however there was an interim stay granted and despite the stay granted by the Revenue Minister, the SDO had proceeded with the matter on merits. He would submit that it is necessary to incorporate challenge to the order of SDO which was passed despite the stay Patil-SR 1 of

77 Ia-10456-2024.doc granted by the Minister as the same amounts to insubordination. 4.

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent would oppose the application and submit that the order of SDO, which is on merits can be assailed by availing the alternate remedy and it is not necessary to incorporate a challenge to the same before this Court in this petition. He however fairly submits that as far as the deletion of names of some of the Respondents and addition of prayer clause (b) is concerned, he does not have any objection.

5.

I find considerable merit in the contention of learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. The subject matter of present petition is the order of Minister dismissing the revision application. Subsequent order of SDO may be challenged by taking out appropriate proceedings and the same cannot be challenged before this Court in view of the hierarchy of authorities available under the MLRC. 6.

In view thereof, Interim Application is allowed to the extent of deleting the names of Respondent Nos.8 to 21 and 25 to 29 and for substituting the prayer clause (b) only which is at page 9 of the application. Amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from today.

7.

Let the petition come up on 19th August 2024. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Patil-SR 2 of Signed by: Sachin R. Patil Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 06/08/2024 19:29:39