Bombay High Court
Bapurao Laxmanrao Gawali Through ... vs Deepak Jalindar Mendke And Others on 18 February, 2022
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, S. G. Dige
1 ra 49.22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 13730 OF 2021
Bapurao Laxmanrao Gawali
Through His GPA Babasaheb
Kisan Pawar .. Applicant
Versus
Deepak Jalindar Mendke and others .. Respondents
Shri R. S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate a/w Shri Vishal Charan,
Advocate i/by Shri Devang R. Deshmukh, Advocate for the
Applicant.
Shri R. G. Hange, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.
Shri A. S. Shinde, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13730 OF 2021
Deepak Jalindar Mendke .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri R. G. Hange, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri A. S. Shinde, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Shri R. S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate a/w Shri Vishal Charan,
Advocate i/by Shri Devang R. Deshmukh, Advocate for the
Respondent No. 5.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
S. G. DIGE, JJ.
DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2022.
FINAL ORDER :
. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned senior advocate for the
applicant submits that, this Court has passed innocuous order
2 ra 49.22
directing the petitioner to approach the committee under order
dated 09th December, 2021. The learned senior advocate submits
that, dispute amongst the parties is pending before this Court.
The review applicant has filed writ petition bearing Writ Petition
No. 2699 of 2016 before the learned Single Judge of this Court
against the order of the Hon'ble Revenue Minister. Same is
pending. Even civil litigation between the parties is pending.
The original writ petitioner failed to bring all these facts to the
notice of this Court.
2. Mr. Hange, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1
submits that, the original writ petitioner has placed on record
copies of suits pending between the parties. Only pendency of
writ petition was not brought to the notice of this Court. The
Committee has also considered grievance of the original writ
petitioner pursuant to the orders of this Court under review.
3. We had passed order dated 09th December, 2021 upon
representation made by the learned advocate for the petitioner.
However, we have also observed that the Committee may
consider the application, if, there is no other
impediment/prohibitory order after judgment passed in the
revision by the Additional Commissioner.
4. In view of the fact that, pendency of the litigation between
the parties was not brought to the notice of the Court, we review
the order dated 09th December, 2021 passed in Writ Petition No.
13730 of 2021. We recall the said order and instead substitute
3 ra 49.22
following order.
5. The stand of the original writ petitioner and the review
applicant shall be taken into consideration by the Committee and/or
the revenue officer and then shall take decision. The committee is
not a quasi judicial body, who can take decision with regard to the
rights of the parties. The said committee is constituted to overlook
the work of the revenue officers and to entertain grievance against
in action on the part of the revenue officers.
6. Be that as it may, the original writ petitioner and the
review applicant may approach the Committee and/or revenue
officers as required and it is for them to take into consideration
all the relevant aspects of the matter which shall be brought to
their notice.
7. Present order shall not be construed as direction to take
entry in a particular manner in the revenue record of a
particular party. The review applicant has already approached
the Committee and/or revenue officer, the contention of the
review applicant shall also be considered.
8. In view of the above, the review application along with writ
petition stand disposed of. No costs.
9. The parties to act on authenticate copy of this order.
[S. G. DIGE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
bsb/Feb.22
