Bombay High Court
Shivaji Trimbak Dongare vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 25 April, 2022
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, S. G. Mehare
1 11-wp 4459-2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4459 OF 2022
Vinod Shankar Nawale
Age : 48 years, Occu. Business
R/o. Shivaji Nagar, Jamkhed
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Sub Divisional Officer
Karjat, Division Karjat
Dist. Ahmednagar
2. The Tahsildar
Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar .. Respondents
Mr. Abhijit S. More, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. S. Shinde, AGP for Respondents-State.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 4590 OF 2022
Shivaji Trimbak Dongare
Age : 50 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Moha, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahmednagar .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The District Collector,
Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Karjat, Tq. Karjat,
1 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2022 04:48:56 :::
2 11-wp 4459-2022.odt
Dist. Ahmednagar.
4. The Tahsildar, Jamkhed,
Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Respondents
Mr. Abhijit S. More, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. G. Karlekar, AGP for Respondents-State.
CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA &
S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATED : 25th APRIL 2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R. D. DHANUKA, J. ) :-
. Rule. The learned A.G.P. waives service for the respondents. Rule
made returnable forthwith.
2. By these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India the petitioners seek writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No. 1 to expedite the
appeal filed by the petitioners on or before 25.04.2022 and for other
reliefs.
3. Against the order of penalty imposed by the respondent No. 2 the
petitioners have filed appeal before Sub Divisional Officer alongwith
application for condonation of delay. During the pendency of the said
appeal, the Tahsildar has put up the property of the petitioners for
auction. This proposes to be held on 25.04.2022.
2 of 5
3 11-wp 4459-2022.odt
4. The learned A.G.P. for the respondents opposes these writ
petitions on the ground that the demand was raised by the respondent
No. 2 in the year 2017, however, no action was taken by the petitioners
impugning the said demand notice for more than four years.
5. The learned A.G.P. does not dispute that the appeal is already
preferred by the petitioners alongwith application for condonation of
delay.
6. In our view, cause of justice would be sub-served if we direct the
Sub Divisional Officer to dispose of the appeal alongwith application
for condonation of delay filed by the petitioners in both these cases
expeditiously and not later on six weeks from the date of
communication of this order after conducting hearing of the petitioners
or the representatives.
7. The order that would be passed by the Sub Divisional Officer
shall be communicated to the petitioners within a period of one week
from the date of passing of order. The respondent No. 2 shall not
proceed with the notice issued to hold auction in respect of the
properties of the petitioners scheduled to be held for a period of six
weeks in view of the order directing the Sub Divisional Officer to
decide the appeal as well as application for condonation of delay.
3 of 5
4 11-wp 4459-2022.odt
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners in both these matters on
instructions undertake not to alienate, create any third party rights or
create any encumbrance or will not part with possession thereto during
the pendency of the appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer alongwith
application for condonation of delay and for a period of eight weeks
thereafter. Undertaking is accepted.
9. In view of the undertaking rendered by the petitioners and in
view of the directions issued to the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the
said application for condonation of delay alongwith appeal
expeditiously, we do not propose to direct the petitioners to deposit any
amount.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view on the
merits of the matter. All contentions of both the parties are kept open.
11. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Sub Divisional
Officer on 05.05.2022 for hearing and shall not seek any unnecessary
adjournment.
12. It is made clear that, if the application for condonation of delay
filed by the petitioners is rejected for any reasons, the respondents shall
not take any coercive steps in respect of the properties of the
petitioners or against the petitioners individually for a period of three
4 of 5
5 11-wp 4459-2022.odt
weeks from the date of communication of this order. The application
for condonation of delay shall be decided first.
13. Writ petitions are disposed of in aforesaid terms.
14. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Parties to act on the
authenticated copy of this order. No order as to costs.
( S. G. MEHARE ) ( R. D. DHANUKA )
JUDGE JUDGE
P.S.B.
5 of 5
