Arjun S/O. Gulabrao Dorle v. Collector, Nagpur And Others

1 44. WP 3514 of 2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3514 OF 2025 ARJUN S/O. GULABRAO DORLE

VERSUS

COLLECTOR, NAGPUR AND OTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. D.G. Paunikar, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. H.R. Dhumale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3-State. CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

DATED : 06th FEBRUARY 2026 PER COURT :- 1.

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner as well as learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3-State.

2.

The petitioner's limited grievance in the instant petition is the observations in paragraph No.6, recorded by the Member (Judicial), Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, in its final judgment and order dated 13.12.2024, passed in Ceiling Appeal No. APL/Ceiling/NGP-04/2023, labeling the conduct of the appellant therein (petitioner herein) as 'blackmailing' the respondent. 3.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the controversy before the Tribunal was with respect to the sale deed and

2 44. WP 3514 of 2025.odt mutation of the property and observations about the conduct of the petitioner by labeling his conduct as a blackmailing tactics is absolutely unwarranted and without any basis. 4.

Notice of this petition was served on all the respondents, however, nobody appears on behalf of contesting respondent Nos.4 and 5. By order dated 04.02.2026, in order to afford one opportunity to the contesting respondents, the matter was adjourned for today. Today, nobody appears on behalf of the contesting respondents. 5.

As regards the grievance raised by the petitioner about labeling his conduct as a 'blackmailing' tactics, it appears that there is no material on record to arrive at any conclusion to straightway brand the petitioner's conduct as a blackmailing tactics. Even the contentions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner remain uncontroverted. I, therefore, find that the observations about the conduct of the petitioner as a 'blackmailing' tactics is without any basis and needs to be expunged.

6.

In view of the above, I find this to be a fit case where indulgence is warranted with the impugned order to the limited extent of expunging the said observation. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the word 'blackmail' from paragraph No.6 of the

3 44. WP 3514 of 2025.odt impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2024, passed by Member (Judicial), Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, shall be expunged. 7.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) asd