SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 7917

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. M. JOSHI
SHRI. ASHOKRAO GANPATI GHATGE AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
SHRI. MADHAVRAO RAMCHANDRA GHATGE AND ORS – Respondent
WP/5561/2022



2024:BHC-AS:38611-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5561 OF 2022

1 Ashokrao Ganpati Ghatge )

Age : 70 Years )

2 Arun Ganpati Ghatge )

Age : Adult, ) Both residing at 1458, ‘E’ Ward ) 7th Lane, Rajarampuri, Kolhapur )

3 Suresh Ganpati Ghatge )

(Since deceased through Lrs.) )

3A Smt. Rekha Suresh Ghatge )

Age : Adult, Occupation : Household )

3B Kum. Sweta Sunil Ghatge )

Age : Adult, Occupation : Houshold ) Both residing at Ganesh Bunglow ) 526/1, Plot No.6, Suryawanshi Mal Samratnagar, ) Kolhapur )

4 Ajit Ganpati Ghatge )

(Since deceased through Lrs.) )

4A Asha Ajit Ghatge )

Age : Adult, Occupation : Household )

4B Anish Ajit Ghatge )

Age : Adult, Occupation : Service ) Both residing at Plot NO. 129, ) Mukta Sainik Housing Society, Kolhapur )

4C Sou. Anushri Pawan Ghatge )

Age : Adult, Occupation : Household ) Residing at 1331/1, Nagar Road ) Near Decathlon, Wagholi, Pune )

5 Kiran Ganpati Ghatge )

(Since deceased through Lrs.) )

)

5A Smt. Sunita Kiran Ghatge )

Age : Adult, Occupation : Household )

5B Shri. Prasad Kiran Ghatge )

Age : Adult, Occupation : Service ) Both R/at- R.C.S. No. 250/B1 to B2 )

Nagala Park, Next Keviz Park, Kolhapur )... Petitioners Versus

1 Shri. Madhavrao Ramchandra Ghatge )

Age : 65 years, Occupation : None )

2 Diliprao Ramchandra Ghatge )

(Since deceased through Lrs.) )

2A Smt. Mangal Dilip Ghatge )

Age : Adult, Occupation : Household )

2B Shri. Ashwin Dilip Ghatge )

Age : Adult, Occupation : Service )

2C Sou. Amrita Pranav Advitot )

Age : Adult, Occupation : Household ) All residing at C.S.No. 1458, ‘E’ Ward, 7th Lane, ) Rajarampuri, Kolhapur )

3 Deputy Director of land Records )

Pune Division, Pune )

4 Superintendent of Land Records, Kolhapur )

Copy to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 ) To be served on the Office of Government Pleader, )

High Court, Appellate Side, Mumbai ) … Respondents …………...

 Mr. Chetan Patil a/w. Mr. Mandar Bagkar, Advocates for the Petitioners.

 Mr. Pandit Kasar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

 Mr. J. P. Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4- State.

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.

Digitally signed SONALIby SONALI SATISH KILAJE SATISH Date:

KILAJE 2 10 02 :24 0.1 :50 0.01 +0700 RESERVED ON: 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2024.

PRONOUNCED ON: 27thSEPTEMBER, 2024.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner takes exception in this petition to order dated 06.04.2022 passed by Deputy Director of Land Records, Pune holding that the challenge to order before him is not tenable and Revision can only be preferred before the State under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short “the Code”).

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the name of his father was entered into revenue record in respect of old City Survey No. 1458/4/1,2 and 3 (renumbered as Plot No. 162 as per the Town Planning Scheme sanctioned by City of Kolhapur, in the year 1979). His name was entered on the basis of statement made by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and other co- sharers. An order was passed on 10.01.1980 by the City Survey Officer directing name of Ganpati Ishwar Ghatge (father of petitioner) to be entered in the property card of the subject land. According to the petitioners respondents have challenged order dated 10.01.1980 passed by the City Survey Officer by filing an appeal before the Superintendent of Land Records, Kolhapur under Section 247 of the Code. On 30.11.2008 i.e. after the period of 38 years of the said order, appeal came to be filed. An application for condonation of delay was also filed along with the appeal. It is claimed by the petitioners that no reason leave apart sufficient cause has been stated for condonation of delay of 38 years. Pursuant to the receipt of notice petitioner appeared before respondent No.4 and objected to the application for condonation of delay. Respondent No.4 by order dated 01.02.2022 condoned the delay of 38 years. This order was challenged by filing a Revision Application under Section 257 of the code before the respondent No.3 -Deputy Director of Land Records, Pune. This Authorit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top