JUDGMENT (PER – MANISH PITALE, J.) :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioners claim to raise an issue in public interest, to challenge Government Resolution dated 18.07.2023, whereby an Additional Tahsildar has been appointed at Kasar Shirsi in Taluka – Nilanga, District – Latur and office of the said Additional Tahsildar, has been established at Kasar Shirsi.

3. The petitioners claim that the aforesaid Government Resolution violates the mandate of section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.L.R. Code’) as also the law laid down by Division Benches of this Court in Public Interest Litigation No. 72 of 2013 (Dr. Avinash Ramkrishna Kashiwar and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) and Public Interest Litigation No. 114 of 2024 with connected petitions (Santosh Suresh Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others)

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the said Government Resolution could have been issued only upon following the mandate of section 4(4) of the MLR Code, requiring issuance of notification and that too subject to the condition of previous publication and compliance with section 24 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, so that the persons / villagers likely to be affected in the district would have got an opportunity to raise objection. According to the petitioners, having failed to do so, the Government Resolution dated 18.07.2023 is rendered arbitrary and illegal, which deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. On the other hand, the respondent – State as well as respondent nos. 5 and 6 i.e. the Kasar Shirsi Gram Panchayat and a registered Sanstha of villagers support the said Government Resolution. It is specifically contended on their behalf that since the impugned Government Resolution does not constitute a revenue area, section 4 of the MLR Code is not applicable. It is further asserted that section 7 of the MLR Code pertaining to the Revenue Officers in the District read with section 13 thereof providing for powers and duties of

the Revenue Officers, squarely apply to the facts of the present case. It is specifically submitted that notification under section 13(3) of the MLR Code dated 17.08.2023, has been issued and, therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned Government Resolution dated 18.07.2023. On this basis, the two judgments on which the petitioners rely, are sought to be distinguished.

6. Before referring to the rival submissions in detail, it would be necessary to briefly state the chronology of events leading to the filing of the present Public Interest Litigation.

7. On 18.07.2023, respondent – State issued the impugned Government Resolution. In the preface to the Government Resolution, it was recorded that since the population of Taluka – Nilanga of Latur District had increased and the pressure on the Tehsil Office at Taluka – Nilanga had increased, considering administrative convenience, an independent office of Additional Tahsildar at Kasar Shirsi in Taluka – Nilanga was required to be established and for that purpose, posts were to be created and hence the necessity of issuing the Government Resolution.

8. Thereafter, the Government Resolution specified the details of the posts approved for the proposed office of the Additional Tahsildar of Kasar Shirsi in Taluka – Nilanga, which included one

Additional Tahsildar and one Clerk-cum-Typist. The Government Resolution also specified 63 villages that would be attached to the newly created office of Additional Tahsildar at Kasar Shirsi in Taluka – Nilanga and remaining 99 villages that continued to be attached to the office of the Tahsildar at Nilanga, Taluka – Nilanga. It was recorded that a separate notification under section 13(3) of the MLR Code was being issued to specify that the powers being exercised by the Tahsildar, Nilanga would be exercised by the Additional Tahsildar, Kasar Shirsi, limited to the area of