Gajabai Marutik Shinde Ando Rs vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2071 Bom

                                 1                  WP 3028.2011.odt

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  41 WRIT PETITION NO.3028 OF 2011

          GAJARABAI MARUTI SHINDE AND OTHERS
                           VERSUS
         THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                              ...
           AGP for Respondents : Mr. K B Jadhavar
         Advocate for Respondents 2-4 : Mr. V S Bedre
                              ...
                   CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.

Dated: February 01, 2021 ...

PER COURT :-

1. None present for the petitioners, though duly

served with the court notice.

2. The learned A.G.P. appearing for the Respondent/

State has raised a preliminary objection that as against

the order impugned, second revision before the State is

maintainable in view of the Judgment of the Supreme

Court in case of Gurudassing Vs. State of Maharashtra

reported in 2015 (6) Mh.L.J. 915.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to

4 submits that the respondent/Muktabai Hajare has

instituted the R.C.S. No.366 of 2005 against the present

aaa/-

2 WP 3028.2011.odt

petitioners and one Anandibai for declaration and

perpetual injunction in respect of the suit property and

respondent no.4-Laxmibai has instituted the R.C.S.

No.367 of 2005 against the petitioners herein and

Anandibai for declaration and perpetual injunction and

in both the suits the trial court has decreed the suit and

thereby declared that the defendants/petitioners herein

are having no title and concern with the suit property

and, accordingly, a decree of perpetual injunction is

passed against them. Learned counsel for respondents

submits that the said decree passed by the learned Civil

Judge J.D. Parner dated 22.12.2010 in both the suits

has attained the fnality. Learned counsel submits that

considering the same, the learned Commissioner has

quashed and set aside the orders passed by the

authorities below and, accordingly, held that names of

the present respondent nos. 2 to 5 shall be mutated in

respect of the suit land. Learned counsel submits that

instead of challenging this order before the State

Government by fling a second revision, the petitioners

have challenged the said order by fling writ petition.

aaa/-

3 WP 3028.2011.odt

Though, the alternate effcacious remedy is available to

the petitioners, they have not availed the same.

Further, the petitioners are also not responding to the

court notice. In view of the above submissions and in

view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the

case Gurudassing Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), this

writ petition is disposed off, with the liberty to the

petitioners to avail the alternate remedy of fling the

second revision before the State Government, if so

desired.

( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ...

aaa/-