Bombay High Court
Natha Kedari Chougule Since ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 25 March, 2021
Bench: K.K. Tated, Abhay Ahuja
46.99067.20-wpst.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 99067/2020
Natha Kedari Chougule
Since Deceased Through Lrs. ..... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. Nikhil N. Pawar for the Petitioners
Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for the State
CORAM: K.K.TATED &
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 25, 2021
P.C.
1 Heard. On last occasion this Court had pointed out the
Petitioners that the petition is not maintainable, as
alternate efficacious remedy is available to the Petitioners.
2 Today, the learned counsel for the Petitioners submits
that he received instructions from his client to withdraw
the Writ Petition with liberty to file a revision before the
State Government along with an Interim Application. To
that effect, he has given in writing. Same is taken on record
and marked "X" for identification.
3 The Writ Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.
4 No order as to costs.
Basavraj G. Patil 1/5
46.99067.20-wpst.odt
5 At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioners
submits that in order dated 23.03.2021 some errors have
been crept- in which need to be corrected. Same are as
under:
a. On page 1, para 2, line 2 instead of Respondent
No.15 Shankar Vishnu Salunke it should be
Respondent No.5 Sakharam Shankar Salunkhe.
b. On page 1, last line, instead of Respondent No.4
it should be Respondent No.2.
c. Last three lines from page 2, para 3 i.e. "In the
entire petition, the Petitioner has not challenged the
order dated 10.10.2016 passed in Appeal No.SR-
1565/2010" be deleted.
d. Paragraph 4 of the said order be substituted
with the following:
4. The learned AGP submits that alternate
efficacious remedy is available to the Petitioner
by way of Revision before the State Government.
Hence, the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is
not maintainable.
6 The order dated 23.03.2021 stands corrected
accordingly. Rest of the order shall remain as it its.
Corrected order reads thus:
Basavraj G. Patil 2/5
46.99067.20-wpst.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 99067/2020
Natha Kedari Chougule
Deceased, Through Lrs. ..... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. Nikhil Narendra Pawar for the Petitioners
Mr. R. P. Kadam, AGP for the State
CORAM: K.K.TATED &
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 23, 2021
P.C.
1 Heard. By this Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the Petitioners are seeking direction
against the Respondents not to open and/or entertain the
Application made by the Respondent under the
Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 after 25 years.
2 It is to be noted that, in the present proceedings,
Respondent No.5 Sakharam Shankar Salunkhe had filed
Appeal bearing No.SR-192/2005 before Respondent No.2
which was dismissed by the Authority by order dated
31.01.2007. Thereafter Respondent No.5 Sakharam
Shankar Salunkhe preferred appeal bearing No.SR-
1565/2010 before Respondent No.2. That appeal was
Basavraj G. Patil 3/5
46.99067.20-wpst.odt
allowed by the Authority and thereafter Respondent No.5
filed Application for execution of the said order which was
challenged by the Petitioner before this Court. He submits
that the Authority has no right to reopen the entire case
after more than 25 years under the said Act. In support of
his contention, he relies on the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in the matter of Suresh Bapu
Sankanna & Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
2018(4) Mh.L.J. 331. The learned counsel for the
Petitioners submits that in view of the Division Bench
judgment of this Court, the Writ Petition deserves to be
allowed.
3 It is to be noted that in the case in hand the appellate
authority has passed order dated 10.10.2016 and
Respondent No.5 has made Application before the Authority
to execute the said order, which was challenged by the
Petitioner.
4. The learned AGP submits that alternate efficacious
remedy is available to the Petitioner by way of Revision
before the State Government. Hence, the Writ Petition
filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable.
5 It is to be noted that in the matter of Suresh (supra),
the Petitioners had challenged the Application filed by the
Respondents under section 32 of the said Act on the ground
that the same was filed after more than 44 years. That is
not the case in hand.
Basavraj G. Patil 4/5
46.99067.20-wpst.odt
6 When this Court declined to entertain the Writ
Petition on the ground that an alternate remedy is available
to the Petitioner, he seeks some time to take instructions
from his client. At his request, Office is directed to place the
matter on board on 25.03.2021.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)
Basavraj G. Patil 5/5
