Vilas Marotrao Thakare v. State Of Maha., Thr. Revenue And Forest Dept., Mumbai And ORS.
1 60. WP 4009 of 2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4009 OF 2025 VILAS MAROTRAO THAKARE
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHA., THR. REVENUE AND FOREST DEPT., MUMBAI 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. A.D. Sonak & Mr. A.P. Thakare, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. K.H. Bhondge, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5-State. Mr. P.R. Puri, Advocate for Respondent No.6.
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATED : 28th APRIL 2026 1.
Before any arguments are advanced on merits, Mr. P.R. Puri, learned Advocate for respondent No.6 submitted that the petitioner has placed on record certain manipulated documents to obtain advantage in its favour.
2.
Learned Advocate for respondent No.6 has invited my attention to the typed copies of the order dated 05.04.2017, passed by Naib Tahsildar, Kalmeshwar and order dated 26.07.2018, passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Saoner, which are annexed in the petition as Annexure 'E' and 'F'.
2 60. WP 4009 of 2025.odt i) By pointing out the contents of the certified copy of the order dated 05.04.2017, he submits that, by comparison with the typed copy at Annexure 'E', which is placed on record by the petitioner, with certified copy of the said order, the crucial sentence in order dated 05.04.2017, from the operative portion of the order which mentions inference about the possession of the property being not with the Deosthan, are omitted in the typed copy of the said order. ii) Further by pointing out the contents of the certified copy of the order dated 26.07.2018, passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Saoner, he submits that the typed copy at Annexure 'F', which is filed on record by the petitioner, when compared with page Nos.
2 and 3 of the certified copy of the said order, the document at Annexure 'F' is incomplete in that two pages are not at all typed. iii) Apart from this, he invited my attention to the document of revenue record i.e. Adhikar Abhilekh Panji, which is at page No.36 and submits that in the typed copy of the said document, which is filed on record at page No.134, in the last column, the most important words are wrongly typed.
3.
Learned Advocate for respondent No.6, therefore, submits that this is an interpolation in the documents in order to gain certain favourable orders from this Court.
3 60. WP 4009 of 2025.odt 4.
In view of these submissions showing discrepancies in the typed copies and the certified copies of the said orders, when learned Advocate for the petitioner is confronted, he seeks time to respond to these contentions by filing appropriate affidavit. 5.
The petitioner is granted time to file necessary affidavit. However, parties to note that in case there is no convincing justification in this regard by the petitioner, this Court would be constrained to take appropriate action against the petitioner for misleading the Court and manipulating the documents with a view to obtain favourable orders.
6.
Necessary affidavit be filed on or before next date. 7.
List the petition on 10th June 2026.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) asd