Bombay High Court
Amol Kumar S/O Madanmohan Jaiswal ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 29 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp7301.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.7301/2014
1 Amol Kumar s/o Madanmohan Jaiswal,
aged about 31 Yrs., Occu. Legal Practitioner,
R/o Mishra Lines, Sadar Bazar, Paratwada,
Tq. Achalpur, Distt. Amravati.
2 Nandkishor s/o Balbhadra Jaiswal,
aged about 75 Yrs., Occu. Business,
R/o Sadar Bazar, Paratwada,
Tq. Achalpur, Distt. Amravati. (..Dead, through L.Rs.)
2(a)
Omprakash s/o Nandkishor Jaiswal,
age 54 Yrs., Occu. Business.
2(b) Prakash s/o Nandkishor Jaiswal,
age 46 Yrs., Occu. Business.
2(c) Deokabai wd/o Nandkishor Jaiswal,
age 74 Yrs., Occu. Household.
All Nos.2(a) to (c) R/o Sadar Bazar,
Paratwada, Tq. Achalpur, Distt. Amravati.
2(d) Sau. Savita w/o Deepakkumar Jaiswal,
age 57 Yrs., Occu. Household Work,
Near Water Tank, Mahal, Nagpur.
2(e) Sunita w/o Narendra Jaiswal,
age 42 Yrs., Occu. Household,
R/o Daryapur Road, Anjangaon,
Distt. Amravati. ..Petitioners.
..V/s..
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Minister of State for
Revenue Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. Deputy Director of Land Records,
Amravati Region, Amravati, office at
Divisional Revenue Commissioner's
Office Campus, Camp, Amravati 444 602.
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:31:58 :::
2 wp7301.14
3. Superintendent of Land Records,
Office at In front of Collector Office,
Camp Amravati, Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
4. Dy. Superintendent of Land Records (TILR),
Achalpur, Tq. Achalpur, Distt. Amravati.
5. Shri Navalkishor S/o Radhakisanlal Jaiswal,
aged about 62 Yrs., Occu. Business,
R/o House No.6, Appaswami Colony, Akot,
Tq. Akot, Distt. Akola. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri H.R. Dhumale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Shri H.S. Chitaley, Advocate for respondent No.5.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : 29.6.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for the petitioners, Shri H.R. Dhumale,
A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Shri H.S. Chitaley, Advocate for the
respondent No.5.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister
allowing the revision application filed by the respondent No.5 under Section 257 of
the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
Though several submissions are made on merits of the matter, one of the
challenge raised on behalf of the petitioners is that Madanmohan Jaiswal - father of
petitioner No.1 and Nandkishor Jaiswal - father of petitioner Nos.2(a) to 2(e), who
3 wp7301.14
were party in the proceedings before the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records and
Superintendent of Land Records were not impleaded as party in the revision before
the State Government. This fact is not disputed on behalf of the respondent No.5.
The learned Advocate for the respondent No.5 has submitted that the predecessors of
the petitioners and the petitioners have no concern with the property in respect of
which the proceedings are going on. However, it is not pointed out why
Madanmohan Jaiswal and Nandkishor Jaiswal were impleaded parties in the
proceedings before Deputy Superintendent of land Records and Superintendent of
Land Records.
4. In my view, the impugned order is required to be set aside on the ground that
the necessary parties were not impleaded in the revision memo.
Hence, the following order:
(i) The impugned order is set aside.
(ii) The matter is remitted to the State Government for deciding the revision filed
by the respondent No.5, afresh according to law after hearing the concerned parties.
(iii) The petitioners and the respondents shall appear before the State
Government on 20th September, 2016 and abide by the further instructions/orders in
the matter.
(iv) The petition is allowed in the above terms.
(v) In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
