Shubhada S Kadam

503 wp 2452 of 2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 2452 OF 2021

Mahendra Chandrakant Mhatre

….Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra through the

Department of Revenue Mantralaya,

Mumbai

….Respondents

Mr. Indraprakash Tripathi i/b. Mr. Abhikshek Lalji Tripathi, Advocate for

the petitioner.

Mr. Abhay L. Patki, Addl. Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 3

-State.

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &

KISHORE C. SANT, JJ.

DATE : 25^th JULY, 2022.

P.C. :

1.

Heard Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.

Patki, learned AGP for the State.

2.

Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, orally prayed for

leave to amend the petition. He submitted that in prayer clause (a) of the

petition, the representation dated is inadvertently referred to as

“8^th June, 2016”. This being a minor inadvertent error, leave as prayed for,

is granted. Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith.

1/4

SHUBHADA

SHANKAR

KADAM

Digitally signed

by SHUBHADA

SHANKAR

KADAM

Date: 2022.07.28

14:38:37 +0530

Shubhada S Kadam

503 wp 2452 of 2021.doc

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that

though in prayer clause (a), directions are sought to consider and decide

certain applications/representations and reference is made to 3 such

applications/representations, the petitioner restricts his prayers only in

respect of applications/representations dated 8^th June, 2018 and 5^th June,

2018 and he is not pressing the prayer made in application dated

10^th April, 2018. The statement is accepted as an undertaking to this

Court.

4.

The petitioner submitted an application to respondent No.3-

Talathi, Goregaon, Taluka – Borivali and submitted that the petitioner is in

possession of various documents and prayed for deleting the entries in

the revenue records. It seems that the application is proforma application

initiated under the caption “egkjk”Vª tehu eglwy vf/kfu;e 1966 ps dye 149

uqlkj vf/kdkj laiknu djko;kP;k vtkZpk uewuk o lR;izfrKkys[k (egkuxjikfydk]

uxjikfydk] eqacbZ egkuxj izns’k fodkl izkf/kdj.k] flMdks izkf/kdj.k] dWUVksuesaV {ks=klkBh Lora=

lR;izfrKkys[k lknj dj.ks vko’;d jkghy”. It is the submission that as the

concerned authority-Talathi failed to take any steps, the petitioner

submitted further representation to the collector i.e. respondent No.2. The

title and tenor of the representation certainly raises certain objections

and it can safely be said that the application/representation is not very

happily worded. It also can be seen that the petitioner submitted his first

representation to Talathi on 5^th June, 2018 and even without waiting for

2/4

Shubhada S Kadam

503 wp 2452 of 2021.doc

some considerable time, which any authority would require to consider

the application, jumps in the office of the Collector on the 3^rd day of

submitting application to Talathi. Be that as it may, it seems that the

application/representation was under the consideration of the authority.

On perusal of the communication placed on record at Exhibit -H, page 49,

it reveals that Talathi, Goregaon i.e. respondent No.3 communicated the

petitioner that there are certain procedural defects and the Talathi was

waiting for modified order on the basis of report submitted to the authority

on 9^th July, 2018. As respondent No.3 was not having this modified order,

the petitioner was informed about respondent No.3’s inability to take any

action and the petitioner was informed that his application is filed.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this

communication was forwarded in the year 2018 and till the date of filing of

the petition, there was no progress in the matter, as such, the petitioner is

approaching this Court.

6.

Considering the above referred facts, learned AGP appearing

for the respective authority