Bombay High Court
Tasgaonkar Industries Pvt Ltd Through ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its Addl. ... on 7 February, 2025
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
2025:BHC-AS:7183-DB
1 28 WP-907-24.doc
BHARAT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DASHARATH
PANDIT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT
Date: 2025.02.13
19:22:12 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 907 OF 2024
1. Tasgaonkar Industries Pvt. Ltd. }
A Company incorporated under the }
Relevant provisions of Companies Act, 1956 }
Having its office at Sumati Krishna Niwas, }
st
1 Floor, Near Hotel Ameya Shivsena }
Bhavan Path, Shivaji Park, Mumbai-400028 }
Through its authorized representative }
Nagsen Tukaram Kamble }
Age:52 years, Occu:Service }
Address as above. }
}
2. Tasgaonkar Universal Pvt. Ltd. }
A Company incorporated under the }
Relevant provisions of Companies Act, 1956 }
Having its office at Sumati Krishna Niwas, }
st
1 Floor, Near Hotel Ameya Shivsena }
Bhavan Path, Shivaji Park, Mumbai 400028 }
Through its authorized representative }
Nagsen Tukaram Kamble }
Age : Occu: Service }
Address as above. }.. Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra }
Through its Addl. Chief Secretary }
Revenue Department, Mantralaya, }
Mumbai 400 001 }
}
2. Tahsildar }
Phaltan Taluka, District Satara. }
}
3. Sub Divisional Officer }
Phaltan Taluka, District Satara. }
}
4. Collector }
Satara District }
}
5. Divisional Commissioner, }
BDP-SPS
1/5
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2025 14:10:32 :::
2 28 WP-907-24.doc
Pune Division, Pune. }
}
6. Sadashiv Buvasaheb Jadhav }
Age:53 at Rajale, Taluka: Phaltan }
District : Satara } ...Respondents.
...
Mr. A. V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atharva Date i/by
Mr. Akshay Kapadia with Mr. Kishor Lawate, Mr. Vinod Shejwal,
Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Kalel, Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent nos.1 to 5.
...
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : 7th FEBRUARY 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER: A. S. CHANDURKAR, J)
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. In terms of the
affidavit of service dated 06/02/2025 it is stated that on
12/01/2025 respondent no.6 was not present when the service
was sought to be effected and his family members refused to
accept the service.
2] It is the case of the petitioners that they have purchased
various lands for being utilised for industrial purposes. The
names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records
accordingly. In view of complaints made by the respondent
no.6, the mutation entries standing in the name of the
petitioners were cancelled by the respondent no.2 on
BDP-SPS
3 28 WP-907-24.doc
24/01/2011. The Tahsildar passed the said order in exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 63-1A of the Maharashtra Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, Act of 1948).
3] Pursuant to the amendment to the provisions of Section
63-1A of the Act of 1948, the petitioners sought restoration of
their names in the revenue records. They had approached this
Court by filing Writ Petition No.1780 of 2022 in that regard. By
an order dated 28/02/2022, the petitioners were permitted to
withdraw the said writ petition with liberty to file appropriate
proceedings before the Collector, Satara. Pursuant to such
liberty, the petitioners filed proceedings seeking exemption from
compliance of the provisions of Section 63-1A of the Act of 1948
and also sought restoration of its names in the revenue records.
The said proceedings were titled as an appeal and filed on
01/04/2022. On 08/09/2023, the Additional Collector, Satara
disposed of the said proceedings by treating the same as an
appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue
Code, 1966. He held such appeal to be not maintainable and
hence dismissed the proceedings. In the meanwhile, an
application dated 09/03/2022 was also filed by the petitioners
seeking a declaration that the lands purchased by the
BDP-SPS
4 28 WP-907-24.doc
petitioners could be utilised for bonafide industrial use in view
of the amended provisions of Section 63-1A of the Act of 1948.
The petitioners also sought restoration of their names in the
revenue records. It is in that backdrop that the petitioners have
filed this writ petition raising various prayers including
challenge to the order dated 08/09/2023 passed by the
Additional Collector, Satara.
4] We have heard the learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader
for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Undisputedly, the proceedings that
were filed by the petitioners on 01/04/2022 before the
Additional Collector were treated as proceedings filed under
Section 247 of the Code. The same were rightly held to be not
maintainable. In terms of Section 63-1A(6) of the Act of 1948 it
is for the Collector to consider the grant of permission in the
matter of non-initiation of bonafide industrial activities. Such
request made by the petitioners on 09/03/2022 is yet to be
considered by the Collector.
5] Considering the fact that the petitioners' application dated
09/03/2022 invoking the provisions of Section 63-1A is still
BDP-SPS
5 28 WP-907-24.doc
pending with the Collector, the following directions would serve
the ends of justice:-
(i) The District Collector shall consider the
petitioners' application dated 09/03/2022
and decide the same in accordance with law
within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of the copy of this judgment. While
doing so, respondent no.6 shall also be
heard.
(ii) It is clarified that the order dated
08/09/2023 passed by the Additional
Collector, Satara in the proceedings filed
under Section 247 of the Code would not
come in the way of such adjudication as said
proceedings were not maintainable in law.
(iii) With the aforesaid directions, the writ
petition is disposed of. All contentions on
merits are kept open.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
(M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
BDP-SPS
