Anup Jingonda Patil v. State Of Informaiton Commission And Others

Gokhale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 64 OF 2026 Narayan Patilbuva Wagh & Ors.

..Petitioners

Versus

Gram Mahasul Adhikari/Gavkamgar Talathi, Sajja Ranjani & Ors.

..Respondents __________ Ms. Rachana Harpale a/w. Anjali Shinde i/b. Nitin Deshpande for Petitioners.

Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for State/Respondent.

__________ CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 19 JANUARY 2026 PC :

1.

Heard Ms. Rachana Harpale, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Pawar, learned AGP for the State. 2.

The case of the petitioners is that, they are the owners of the land area admeasuring 0-H, 80-R of Gat No.308, situated at village Ranjani, Taluka Ambegaon, District Pune. The area admeasuring 80R was only reserved for rehabilitation. The land falls in the benefited zone of Kukadi Irrigation Project. It was reserved for rehabilitation of the persons affected by the said Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date:

2026.01.20 12:13:42 +0530 VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE

project. Resultantly, an entry was made to that effect in the other rights column of this land. It is the case of the petitioners that, for past more than 43 years the Respondents had not acquired the petitioners' land, but on account of entry of reservation for the rehabilitation of the project affected persons, the petitioners are unable to fully utilize their ownership rights with respect to those lands. In this background, the petitioners have prayed for directions to the Respondents to delete the entry of reservation from the revenue record of the land admeasuring 80R of Gat No.308, situated at village Ranjani, Taluka Ambegaon, District Pune.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on various orders passed by the Division Benches of this Court. Learned counsel also relied on the G.R. dated 18.01.2022 annexed at Exhibit-C to this petition.

4.

We have perused the G.R. dated 18.01.2022 and the earlier orders referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In our opinion, the petitioners can make representations before the

authorities to take steps in accordance with the said G.R. dated 18.01.2022. When we expressed our opinion, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that, she is not pressing this petition, at this stage, but she may be given liberty to make representations before the authorities, and the authorities be directed to follow the procedure in accordance with the said G.R. dated 18.01.2022. 5.

Considering this request, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn. The Petitioners are at liberty to make representations before the concerned authorities. After that, the petitioners' representations shall be decided in accordance with the G.R. dated 18.01.2022. The Authorities shall strictly follow the timeline mentioned in the said G.R.

6.

In case, the timeline is not followed, the petitioners are at liberty to approach this Court. In case, an adverse order is passed, then also the petitioners are at liberty to approach this Court again.

7.

With this direction, the petition is disposed of. (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)