56-wp-3901-2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.3901 OF 2022

Smt. Shanta S. Tarvi

..

Petitioner.

v/s.

The State of Maharashtra

& Others

..

Respondents.

Mr. Rakesh R. Bhatkar, for the Petitioner.

Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent-State.

Mr. Kamlesh i/b. Ms. Sonali Jadhav, for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &

VINAY JOSHI,JJ.

DATED : 5^th APRIL, 2022.

P.C:-

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2

The learned Counsel submits that the N A permission

allegedly dated 17^th March, 1993 (page 27) is not on the record.

According to the learned Counsel, no such order is in existence. Same is

nonest and deserves to be declared as forged and fabricated.

3

We have heard learned Counsel for the Respondents and the

learned AGP.

4

It is the matter of record that the order dated 17^th March,

1993 was assailed by the present Petitioner before the Appellate Authority

under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (in short

‘

MLRC’). The appeal is allowed. The Respondents had filed review and

S.R.JOSHI

1 of 2

SMITA

RAJNIKANT

JOSHI

Digitally

signed by

SMITA

RAJNIKANT

JOSHI

Date:

2022.04.08

13:51:37

+0530

56-wp-3901-2022.doc

now the matter is subjudiced before the Minister. The present Petitioner is

a party. The Petitioner herself had initiated proceedings under Section

247 of the MLRC, challenging the very same order (subject matter of the

present Petition).

5

All contentions of the Petitioner can be raised before the

revisional authority where the Revision is pending. The Petitioner is party

in the Revision proceedings.

6

Entertaining the present Writ Petition, would be an abuse of

process of Court and law, more particularly when the proceedings are

subjudiced with regard to the same order before the Revisional Authority.

7

In view of this, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

(VINAY JOSHI,J.)

(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

S.R.JOSHI

2 of 2