Monday, 04, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Nanasaheb Baliram Gopalghare vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4840 Bom

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4840 Bom
Judgement Date : 5 May, 2022

Bombay High Court
Nanasaheb Baliram Gopalghare vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 5 May, 2022
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, S. G. Mehare
                                         1           940-WP.5072-22, oral jud.odt

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 5072 OF 2022

     Nanasaheb Baliram Gopalghare,
     Age : 50 years, Occu. Business
     R/o Kharda, Tal. Jamkhed
     Dist. Ahmednagar                                       ... Petitioner

                      Versus

     1.      The State of Maharashtra,
             Through, Sub Divisional Officer,
             Karjat Dist. Ahmednagar.

     2.      The Tahsildar, Jamkhed,
             Dist. : Ahmednagar.                            ... Respondents

                                     ...
                  Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Undre V. S.
               AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. K. N. Lokhande.
                                     ...

                                CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA, AND
                                        S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATE : 05.05.2022

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R. D. DHANUKA, J.) :-

1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice for

respondents-State Authorities. Rule is made returnable

forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the

2 940-WP.5072-22, oral jud.odt

Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks writ of certiorari for

quashing and setting aside the Auction Notice dated

18.04.2022 issued by the Tahsildar, Jamkhed and further seeks

an order by directing the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the

appeal filed by the petitioners expeditiously.

3. It is not in dispute that against the order passed by the

Tahsildar, the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before

the Sub Divisional Officer along with condonation application

and stay application which are pending. There is a delay in

filing the said appeal on the part of the petitioner. In the

meanwhile, the Tahsildar has issued an auction notice on

18.04.2022 calling upon the petitioner to pay an entire amount

of Rs.3,76,65,000/- within fifteen (15) days from the date of

said notice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the

judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No.4459 of

2022 in case of Vinod Shankar Nawale Vs. The Sub Divisional

Officer and another and would submit that similar order may

be passed in this petition also.

5. Since the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before

3 940-WP.5072-22, oral jud.odt

the Sub Divisional Officer along with application for

condonation of delay and stay application, we direct the Sub

Divisional Officer to dispose off all the three proceedings

within four (4) weeks from the date of communication of this

order. The Sub Divisional Officer shall first decide the

application for condonation of delay and if the delay is

condoned, the Authority shall decide the application for stay

and also the appeal.

6. Till such decision is taken by the Sub Divisional Officer

and for a period of two (2) weeks thereafter the Tahsildar shall

not take any coercive steps pursuant to the impugned notice of

auction dated 18.04.2022 annexed at Exh.I to the petition.

7. The petitioner shall not create any third party interest or

encumber the said property which is the subject matter of the

said notice for a period of eight (8) weeks from today.

8. Writ Petition is disposed off in the aforesaid terms. Rule

is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.

9. Parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this order.

                                            4         940-WP.5072-22, oral jud.odt

     10.     The      petitioner   shall       not   seek    any     unnecessary

adjournment before the Sub Divisional Officer.

11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any

view on the merits of the condonation application and stay

application filed by the petitioner and also the Sub Divisional

Officer shall not be influenced by the factum of this Court

granting temporary stay against the Tahsildar from taking any

coercive action from entering in the property of the petitioner.

This Court has granted such protection only in view of the fact

that the proceedings of the petitioner by way of appeal as well

as condonation application and stay application are pending

before the Sub Divisional Officer.

       (S. G. MEHARE, J.)                             (R. D. DHANUKA, J.)

                                           ...

     vmk/-





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter