Bombay High Court
Manohar Jamandas Keswani And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra Thr And Ors on 10 November, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav, Amit Borkar
17. CIVIL WP-13956-25.docx
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13956 OF 2025
Manohar Jamandas Keswani & Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Punit Gehi, Advocate for Petitioners
Ms. V.R. Raje, AGP for Respondent No. 1 - State
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 10, 2025
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Gehi, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Ms. Raje,
learned AGP for Respondent No. 1 - State.
2. Mr. Gehi would draw my attention to the impugned order dated
18.09.2023 appended at Exh. 'E', page Nos. 84-86 of Writ Petition
passed under Section 155 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,
1966 read with Rules 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue
Rules, Notification dated 14.08.1967 issued by State of Maharashtra,
Revenue and Forests Department and Guidelines dated 29.12.2018
issued by the Consolidation Commissioner.
3. By virtue of the impugned order, it is argued by Mr. Gehi that
substantive orders have been passed which is prima facie evident after
reading the said order. What is intriguing is that while passing such
orders, no reasons are given by the concerned Tahsildar. He would
argue that substantive proprietary rights in extensive properties
1 of 5
17. CIVIL WP-13956-25.docx
belonging to Petitioner and many others are affected by virtue of this
order. His principal submission is that learned Tahsildar has
transgressed his authority in determining substantive entitlement
rights of parties by virtue of the impugned order. He would submit
that Petitioners are co-owners and bonafide purchasers of land
forming a small portion of Gat No. 182/1. He would draw my
attention to the operative part of the impugned order whereby in
clause Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 11 substantive rights have been determined
qua the aforesaid property which affects rights of Petitioner in Gat
No.182/1. He would submit that Petitioners purchased the subject
property i.e. 60R out of Gat No. 182/1 by a registered sale deed from
Mr. Nivrati Rambhau Arude in 2008 and copy of the registered sale
deed is appended at Exh. 'C'. He would submit that thereafter
Petitioners being joint owners sold 50% of the said land to third party
purchasers and further thereafter Petitioner No. 2 entered into a
registered deed of exchange regarding his share in the said property.
According to Petitioners, Petitioner No. 1 is now entitled to 15R in the
subject property whereas Petitioner No. 2 is entitled to 3.58R in the
subject property. He would submit that by virtue of the impugned
order passed in Revenue proceedings, substantive rights of Petitioner
Nos. 1 and 2 have been jeopardized and affected qua their holding in
2 of 5
17. CIVIL WP-13956-25.docx
Gat No. 182/1. Being aggrieved, Petitioners have challenged the order
of Tahsildar before this Court.
4. Prima facie order of Tahsildar can be challenged before the next
Appellate Authority under the provisions of Section 257 read with
Schedule E of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Reason for
not approaching the Appellate Authority according to Mr. Gehi is that
principle of natural justice is not followed; Petitioner has not been
heard and not even been served. He would rely upon the decision of
this Court in the case of The Tata Power Company Ltd & Anr. v. The
State of Maharashtra & Ors.1 while contending that substantive rights
of Petitioners have been affected without following the due process of
law.
5. Prima facie, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is a
sweeping order and if the same is indeed to be passed, the parties who
are atleast affected need to be heard. Petitioners before me are
challenging the said order which is in respect of several survey
numbers whereas insofar as Petitioners are concerned, it pertains to
their substantive rights in 15R and 3.58R of the property out of Survey
No. 182/1.
1 Judgment dated 20.03.2025 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 2064 of 2025 (Coram :
Amit Borkar, J.)
3 of 5
17. CIVIL WP-13956-25.docx
6. In view of the above, an arguable case is made out by Mr. Gehi
for issuance of notice to Respondents. Needless to state that in view of
the aforesaid facts, no further steps shall be taken by Respondents
much less Tahsildar or any other Revenue official to alter the entries or
give effect to the order in the revenue records until the present
Petition is heard by this Court. If any such action is taken, then no
further steps shall be taken in furtherance of that action.
7. In view of the above, issue notice to the Respondents made
returnable on 08.12.2025. Humdast permitted. In addition to Court's
notice, Petitioners are directed to serve copy of the Petition along with
copy of this order on the Respondents and inform them about the next
date of hearing by any permissible mode of service and file
appropriate affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof on or
before the next date.
8. Ms. Raje, learned AGP waives service for State. She shall be
served with the copy of the Petition in course of today itself by Mr.
Gehi. She shall take appropriate instructions from the concerned
Tahsildar and accordingly apprise the Court on the next adjourned
date. If any reply is to be filed, the same shall be filed before the next
date. If no reply is filed, this Court shall determine the Petition after
hearing the parties in accordance with law at the stage of admission
itself.
4 of 5
17. CIVIL WP-13956-25.docx
9. Stand over to 8th December, 2025.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN Date:
AMBERKAR 2025.11.11
10:50:36
+0530
5 of 5
