Bandu Bala Mali Thr Lrs Jagnnath Bandu Mali v. Dattu Rau Mali Deceased Thr Lrs And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 922 OF 2026 Bandu Bala Mali, Since Deceased Through legal heir Jagnnath Bandu Mali

VERSUS

Dattu Rau Mali, Since Deceased Through legal heirs Uttam Dattu Mali and Others ...

Mr. Nikhil Pawar, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Abhishek B. Devkar for Respondent Nos.1A and 2 to 6. Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent Nos.15 to 17. ...

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 24th MARCH, 2026.

P. C. :

1.

Heard.

2.

The Petitioner raises an exception to the Judgment and order dated 05.12.2025 in Review Application No.7254 of 2025 rendered by the Deputy Director of Land Record, Pune Region, Pune arising out of impugned order dated 25.03.2025 in Appeal No.6243 of 2023.

3.

In view of the affidavit tendered by the Deputy Director of Digitally signed by SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Date:

2026.03.26 20:05:32 +0530 SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Land Records, Pune Region, Pune, the learned counsel for the 1 of

Petitioner submits that the purpose of filing the Petition stands served, particularly paragraphs 5 and 6 thereof, which read thus: "5.

I most respectfully submit that, while passing the impugned order 09.12.2025 by the respondent No.15 inadvertently we could not provide hearing to the petitioner, whereas belatedly, this deponent was of the view that, the hearing was supposed to be provided to the petitioner herein.

6.

I most respectfully undertake that fresh hearing would be provided to the petitioner herein and upon taking into considerations all the factual aspects of the matter the respondent no.15 will decide the matter in accordance with law." 4.

Despite clear disinclination expressed by the Court, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1A and 2 to 6 kept persisting with the matter. Although in paragraphs 5 and 6 the concerned officer has stated on oath that the necessary opportunity was not extended to the Petitioner, still learned counsel or Respondent Nos. 1A and 2 to 6 insisted on being heard submitting that already Petitioner were heard in view of the aforesaid principle, further hearing is not warranted. Accordingly, hearing was granted, and in the process substantial time was consumed.

5.

In that view of the matter, cost is required to be mulcted upon Respondent Nos.1A and 2 to 6, quantified at Rs. 5,000/- and the same shall be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur. 2 of

6.

In view of the aforesaid terms, the Petition stands disposed of. 7.

Needless to state, the parties shall appear before the concerned Authority on 7th April, 2026 at 11:00 a.m., and the matter shall be heard afresh after extending due opportunity to all concerned parties.

8.

All contentions of the parties are kept open. [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.] 3 of