ORAL ORDER

This matter is listed on board pursuant to a Note for Speaking to Minutes filed by learned advocate for the petitioner, inter alia, stating that due to inadvertence, in the order dated 06.03.2026, some words have been left out which are required to be added with a view to avoid misinterpretation. Therefore, the words ‘it is alleged by the authority’ be added in the first line of Paragraph No. 2, which shall then be read as: ‘2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that it is alleged by the authority…’

I have perused the contents of the note. The note stands allowed. The Registry is directed to issue fresh writ accordingly.

ORDER DATED: 06/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of filing present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for the following main relief/s:

“A. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased admit and allow this petition.

B. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside order of the Special Secretary (Appeal) Revenue Department, dated 27/4/2016 at “Annexure A”.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the original land owner had leased out the subject land to the petitioner for a period of 99 years and therefore the concerned revenue authority had initiated proceedings under Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code against the original owner and ultimately passed an order vesting the subject land in the Government. He submits that the notice issued by the concerned revenue authority has not been served to the original owner, despite that, in her absence, the impugned order came to be passed by the concerned revenue authority, which is confirmed by the higher revenue authorities. He submits that the heirs of original owner as well as present petitioner have challenged the said orders by way of preferring two different petitions. Both the petitions were heard together. He further submits that in the matter of original land owners, following order is passed and therefore the said direction is also required to be issued in the present matter also.

“1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule qua respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and learned advocate Mr. Amit K. Dave waives service of notice of Rule qua respondent No.4.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Nachiket Dave for the petitioners submits that proceedings under Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code have been initiated against the present petitioners by the respondent No.3. He submits that respondent No.3 has initiated the said proceedings ex parte and without issuance of any notice to the petitioners, the order came to be passed by the respondent No.3. As soon as said fact has come to the notice of the petitioners, immediately they assailed the said order by way of preferring an appeal before the respondent No.2. He further submits that at the time of assailing the order passed by the respondent No.3 before the respondent No.2, the petitioners have raised manyfold grounds including the ground of violation of principle of natural justice by the respondent No.3. However, the said important aspects have not been considered by the respondent No.2 and appeal preferred by the petitioners came to be dismissed by the respondent No.2 by upholding the order of respondent No.3. The petitioners therefore preferre