Dhananjay Deoram Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department

Breaking News

Back Next

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Bom) 217

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, Y. G. KHOBRAGADE
Dhananjay Deoram Jadhav – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Y.B. Bolkar.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.B. Narwade, AGP.

Headnote: Read headnote

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The Tahsildar has passed certain orders and has carried out mutation entries by recording the factum of lis-pendence. The Petitioner has moved an application/representation dated 23.03.2023 calling upon the Tahsildar to review his own orders and set aside the mutation entries that were carried out under his orders.

3. The learned AGP submits that merely because a representation is filed, does not mean that the Court should direct an Officer to entertain a revision. So also, this would amount to seeking a review by the Tahsildar of his own mutation entries.

4. We are of the view that, a Writ of Mandamus is issued when the Court notices that a particular Officer refuses to exercise jurisdiction duly vested in him by Law for deciding particular matters and in a particular manner, warranting the High Court to issue a ‘Command’ to ensure that he exercises the jurisdiction vested in him by Law. As such, issuance of such a command is a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document