Mansaram Mahadeo Padole And ... vs The Collector, Nagpur And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 15869 Bom

                                1/5                        Judg.18.wp.1826.2020



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 1826 OF 2020


1.      Mansaram Mahadeo Padole
        Aged about 57 Years, Occupation -
        Agriculturist;

2.      Sushil Mansaram Padole
        Aged about 18 Years, Occu - Education;

        Both are Resident at - Plot No.3, Gonhi
        Sim, Sai Nagar, Umred Road, Bahadura,
        Nagpur.                                 ...                 PETITIONERS


                         VERSUS


1.      The Collector, Nagpur
        Office of the Collectorate, Civil Lines,
        Nagpur.

2.      Additional Collector and Land Acquisition
        Officer (General)
        Office of the Collectorate, Civil Lines,
        Nagpur.

3.      National Highway Authority of India,
        through its Project Director, Office at -
        Bungalow No.2, Shubhankar Apts., Plot
        No.159, Ambazari Hill Top, Nagpur.




 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2021                 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2021 02:54:30 :::
                                    2/5                         Judg.18.wp.1826.2020



4.         The Superintendent of Land Records,
           Tahsil Office, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

5.         Dy. Superintendent of Land Record,
           Nagpur (Rural)
           Office at - Administrative Building No.2,
           2nd Floor, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

6.         The Tahsildar, Nagpur (Rural)
           Office at - WHC Road, Civil Lines,
           Nagpur.                            ...                    RESPONDENTS


Mr. R. S. Naktode, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. D. P. Thakre, Addl. G. P. for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 to 6.


                                         CORAM   : SUNIL B. SHUKRE &
                                                   ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATE : NOVEMBER 16, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.]

. Leave to amend the prayer clause of the Petition is granted.

2. Amendment be carried out forthwith.

3. Heard Mr. Naktode, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners

and Mr. Thakre, the learned Addl. G. P., who waives notice for

Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6. There is no need to issue notice to

3/5 Judg.18.wp.1826.2020

Respondent No.3, as alternate prayer, which is now been pressed, does

not seek any relief against the Respondent No.3.

4. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

5. If it is seen from the reply given to the Petitioners by the

Superintendent, Land Records, Nagpur on 24th September, 2015, that in

the opinion of the Superintendent, Land Records, there is a mismatch

between some portion of the land acquired and the outer diversion

intended for connecting the Highway and the inner road, but,

according to the Superintendent, Land Records, no correction in that

regard can be made, as the Award has been passed.

6. Mr. Naktode, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners

submits that this mistake has occurred in the record, which is a part of

land record, and therefore, under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Land

Revenue Code, 1966, correction can be done by the Collector in

exercise of the Powers under Section 135 of the said Code. He submits

that the Petitioners have already made an application in that regard to

4/5 Judg.18.wp.1826.2020

the Respondent No.1 - Collector on 27th February, 2018. This

Application is forming part of the present Petition.

7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that

this Application has still not been decided by the Respondent No.1, and

therefore, the Petitioners have knocked at the door of this Court.

8. In view of above, we are of the view that purpose of the

Petitioners shall stand served, if the Petition is treated as a fresh

representation made by the Petitioners to the Respondent No.1 and it is

then decided by the Respondent No.1, in accordance with law.

9. Accordingly, we partly allow the Petition and direct the

Respondent No.1 to treat this Petition as a fresh representation made to

her and decide the same, in accordance with law, by taking recourse to

her powers under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,

1966, within a period of four months from the date of appearance of

the Petitioners before the Respondent No.1 - Collector.

10. The Petitioners are directed to appear before the

Respondent No.1 - Collector, Nagpur on 25th November, 2021.

                                 5/5                           Judg.18.wp.1826.2020



11.             Rule in above terms. No costs.



       (ANIL L. PANSARE J.)                  (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

Yadav VG