Bombay High Court
Karmyogi Swargiya Dr Shivajirao Patil ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 2 September, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2025:BHC-AUG:23410-DB
1 PIL-ST-24738-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (ST.) NO. 24738 OF 2023
Karmyogi Swargiya Dr. Shivajirao Patil
Nilangekar Taluka Eksangh Kruti Samiti,
Nilanga Through
1] Sambhaji S/o Madhavrao Tare,
Age: 40 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o Jewari, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur
2] Dayanand S/o Baburao Mule,
Age : 55 years, Occu : Agri.,
R/o. Mudgad, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur .. Petitioners
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2] The Collector, Latur,
Collector Office, Latur, Dist. Latur
3] The Sub Divisional Officer,
Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur
4] The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Nilanga, Dist. Latur
5] Kasar Shirsi Gram Panchayat
Through its Member
Gorakhnath Sidramappa Holkunde,
Age 49 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Kasar Shirsi, Tq. Nilanga
District : Latur
6] Kasar Shirsi Taluka Nirman
Ek Sangh Sanstha, Kasar Shirsi
Through Nitin S/o Rajendra Acharya,
Age : 42 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Balkunda, Tq. Nilanga,
District : Latur .. Respondents
2 PIL-ST-24738-2023
...
Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Kunal Kale and
Mr. Vikas Matkar i/b. Mr. Vishwajeet Jain, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Neha B. Kamble, AGP for the respondent - State
Mr. Sanjeeva Deshpande, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Swapnil Patunkar, Mr.
Swapnil Joshi, Ms. Sakshi Mule, Mr. Ojas Deshpande i/b. J.P. Legal
Associates for respondent no. 5
Mr. M.D. Swami, Advocate for respondent no. 6
...
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 05 AUGUST 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 02 SEPTEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT (PER - MANISH PITALE, J.) :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, with
the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioners claim to raise an issue in public interest, to
challenge Government Resolution dated 18.07.2023, whereby an
Additional Tahsildar has been appointed at Kasar Shirsi in Taluka -
Nilanga, District - Latur and office of the said Additional Tahsildar, has
been established at Kasar Shirsi.
3. The petitioners claim that the aforesaid Government
Resolution violates the mandate of section 4 of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.L.R. Code') as
also the law laid down by Division Benches of this Court in Public
Interest Litigation No. 72 of 2013 (Dr. Avinash Ramkrishna Kashiwar
3 PIL-ST-24738-2023
and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) and Public
Interest Litigation No. 114 of 2024 with connected petitions (Santosh
Suresh Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others)
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the said Government
Resolution could have been issued only upon following the mandate of
section 4(4) of the MLR Code, requiring issuance of notification and
that too subject to the condition of previous publication and compliance
with section 24 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, so that the
persons / villagers likely to be affected in the district would have got an
opportunity to raise objection. According to the petitioners, having
failed to do so, the Government Resolution dated 18.07.2023 is
rendered arbitrary and illegal, which deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
5. On the other hand, the respondent - State as well as
respondent nos. 5 and 6 i.e. the Kasar Shirsi Gram Panchayat and a
registered Sanstha of villagers support the said Government
Resolution. It is specifically contended on their behalf that since the
impugned Government Resolution does not constitute a revenue area,
section 4 of the MLR Code is not applicable. It is further asserted that
section 7 of the MLR Code pertaining to the Revenue Officers in the
District read with section 13 thereof providing for powers and duties of
4 PIL-ST-24738-2023
the Revenue Officers, squarely apply to the facts of the present case. It
is specifically submitted that notification under section 13(3) of the MLR
Code dated 17.08.2023, has been issued and, therefore, no fault can
be found with the impugned Government Resolution dated 18.07.2023.
On this basis, the two judgments on which the petitioners rely, are
sought to be distinguished.
6. Before referring to the rival submissions in detail, it would
be necessary to briefly state the chronology of events leading to the
filing of the present Public Interest Litigation.
7. On 18.07.2023, respondent - State issued the impugned
Government Resolution. In the preface to the Government Resolution,
it was recorded that since the population of Taluka - Nilanga of Latur
District had increased and the pressure on the Tehsil Office at Taluka -
Nilanga had increased, considering administrative convenience, an
independent office of Additional Tahsildar at Kasar Shirsi in Taluka -
Nilanga was required to be established and for that purpose, posts
were to be created and hence the necessity of issuing the Government
Resolution.
8. Thereafter, the Government Resolution specified the
details of the posts approved for the proposed office of the Additional
Tahsildar of Kasar Shirsi in Taluka - Nilanga, which included one
5 PIL-ST-24738-2023
Additional Tahsildar and one Clerk-cum-Typist. The Government
Resolution also specified 63 villages that would be attached to the
newly created office of Additional Tahsildar at Kasar Shirsi in Taluka -
Nilanga and remaining 99 villages that continued to be attached to the
office of the Tahsildar at Nilanga, Taluka - Nilanga. It was recorded that
a separate notification under section 13(3) of the MLR Code was being
issued to specify that the powers being exercised by the Tahsildar,
Nilanga would be exercised by the Additional Tahsildar, Kasar Shirsi,
limited to the area of villages specified.
9. On 17.08.2023, the notification was issued in the name of
the Honourable Governor of Maharashtra in exercise of the powers
under section 13(3) of the MLR Code, directing that the Additional
Tahsildar, Kasar Shirsi, Taluka - Nilanga, District - Latur shall exercise
within his jurisdiction, the powers and discharge all the duties and
functions conferred and imposed on Tahsildar, Nilanga, Taluka -
Nilanga, District - Latur, under the provisions of the MLR Code. This
Court is informed that in pursuance of the aforesaid Government
Resolution and notification, appropriate infrastructure has been
identified and created at Kasar Shirsi.
10. The petitioners filed the instant PIL. Initially, it appears that
petitioner no. 1 was not a registered body but subsequently, it was
6 PIL-ST-24738-2023
registered and this fact was recorded in the order dated 15.09.2023
passed in the present proceeding. By the said order, the petitioners
were also permitted to amend the petition to add certain additional
grounds. By an order dated 12.04.2024, this Court allowed a Civil
Application and thereby, permitted the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to be
added as parties to the present proceedings. It was noted that if the
PIL was to be allowed, there was likelihood of respondent nos. 5 and 6
being adversely affected and, therefore, in the interest of justice, they
were directed to be added as parties.
11. Respondent nos. 1 to 4 filed their reply affidavit alongwith
documents in the present PIL. It was taken up for hearing.
12. Mr. Rejendrraa Deshmukkh, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned Government
Resolution dated 18.07.2023 violated the mandatory requirement of
section 4 of the MLR Code, particularly, sub-section (4) thereof. The
respondent - State had failed to offer an opportunity to the villagers of
Taluka - Nilanga, to raise objections due to the fact that there was no
previous publication of the intended move on the part of the State of
creating new office of Additional Tahsildar at Kasar Shirsi. Section 24
of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, made applicable under
section 4(4) of the MLR Code was also not complied with. As a result,
7 PIL-ST-24738-2023
the impugned Government Resolution is rendered illegal and
unsustainable. It was submitted that since the mandate of section 4(4)
of the MLR Code is violated, the petitioners and others, who are likely
to be affected by creation of office of the Additional Tahsildar at Kasar
Shirsi, have been deprived of their statutory right of raising objections
in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
13. It was submitted that an identical issue arose in a case of
Santosh Suresh Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (supra),
wherein a Division Bench of this Court at the Principal Seat, quashed
such Government Resolution, by order dated 17.02.2025 passed in PIL
No. 114 of 2024 and connected petitions, following the dictum laid
down by this Court in its earlier judgment in the case of Dr. Avinash
Ramkrishna Kashiwar and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
others (supra). By relying upon the said judgment, it was submitted
that the impugned judgment deserved to be quashed and set aside,
being violative of the statutory mandate of section 4(4) of the MLR
Code.
14. It was further submitted that a copy of the notification
dated 17.08.2023 was filed with the reply on behalf of the respondent
nos. 1 to 4, purportedly exercising power under section 13(3) of the
MLR Code. It was submitted that the notification would not cure the
8 PIL-ST-24738-2023
fundamental defect in issuance of Government Resolution dated
18.07.2023. The location of the office of the Additional Tahsildar at
Kasar Shirsi has resulted in gross inconvenience to a large number of
villagers in the villages forming part of Taluka - Nilanga, District - Latur
and, therefore, it would be in public interest that the impugned
Government Resolution dated 18.07.2023 is quashed and set aside. It
was submitted that the said move on the part of the respondent - State
was politically motivated as it was based on a request by the local
MLA, which was evident from internal communications exchanged
between the said officials placed on record alongwith the reply affidavit.
On this basis, it was submitted that the impugned Government
Resolution deserved to be quashed and set aside.
15. On the other hand, Ms. Neha B. Kamble, learned AGP
appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4, submitted that the
contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are based on a
misunderstanding of the provisions of the MLR Code. In the facts of
the present case, section 4 of the MLR Code does not apply, as the
Government Resolution, read with the notification, merely establishes
an additional office of the Additional Tahsildar in Taluka - Nilanga to
assist the Tahsildar, Nilanga to perform his duties, thereby increasing
the administrative efficiency of the State machinery. By referring to
sections 7 and 13 of the MLR Code, it was emphasized that the State
9 PIL-ST-24738-2023
was well within its power to establish such additional office of the
Additional Tahsildar for the convenience of the local populace and
since a new revenue area or division was not being constituted or
carved out, section 4 was inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
On this basis, it was submitted that the present petition purportedly
filed in public interest, deserves to be dismissed.
16. It was submitted that the recent judgment of the Division
Bench at the Principal Seat in Santosh Suresh Patil Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others (supra) makes no reference to sections 7 and
13 of the MLR Code and, therefore, present the case is clearly
distinguishable. As regards the judgment in the case of Dr. Avinash
Ramkrishna Kashiwar and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
others (supra), it was submitted that the same is distinguishable on the
basis that in the facts of the said case, a separate new sub division of
talukas was constituted under section 4 of the MLR Code. The
observations made in the said judgment pertaining to the necessity of
previous publication and applicability of section 24 of the Bombay
General Clauses Act, 1904, were made in the context of creation of a
new revenue area, which has nothing to do with the facts of the present
case.
10 PIL-ST-24738-2023
17. Mr. Sanjeeva Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for respondent no. 5 i.e. Kasar Shirsi Gram Panchayat and
Mr. M.D. Swami, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6,
another registered Sanstha like petitioner no. 1 herein, supported the
contentions raised on behalf of the respondent - State. Much
emphasis was placed on the constitution of revenue areas specified in
section 4(1) of the MLR Code, wherein the basic unit is the village. It
was submitted that since the Government Resolution dated 18.07.2023
merely created an additional office of Additional Tahsildar to assist the
Tahsildar at Nilanga, Sections 7 and 13 of the MLR Code, were
relevant and hence, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners,
ought not to be accepted. It was submitted that establishing the office
of the Additional Tahsildar at Kasar Shirsi is convenient for a large
number of villages and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the
present proceeding.
18. The rival submissions concern section 4, 7 and 13 of the
MLR Code. The provisions of the MLR Code concern the
administration of districts throughout the State with emphasis on
collection of land revenue and matters incidental thereto. For carrying
out the purposes of the MLR Code, it is necessary to identify and
constitute revenue areas. Section 4 pertains to constitution of revenue
areas and it reads as follows :-
11 PIL-ST-24738-2023
"4. Constitution of revenue areas.--
(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
specify --
(i) the districts (including the city of Bombay) which constitute a
division;
(ii) the sub-divisions which constitute a district;
(iii) the talukas which constitute a sub-division;
(iv) the villages which constitute a taluka;
(v) the local area which constitutes a village; and
(vi) alter the limits of any such revenue area so constituted by
amalgamation, division or in any manner whatsoever, or abolish any
such revenue area and may name and alter the name of any such
revenue area; and in any case where any area is renamed, then all
references in any law or instrument or other document to the area
under its original name shall be deemed to be references to the area
as renamed, unless expressly otherwise provided :
Provided that, the State Government shall, as soon as possible
after the commencement of this Code, constitute by like notification
every wadi, and any area outside the limits of the gaothan of a
village having a separate habitation (such wadi or area having a
population of not less than three hundred, as ascertained such by a
revenue officer not below the rank of Tahsildar) to be a village; and
specify therein the limits of the village so constituted.
(2) The Collector may by an order published in the prescribed
manner arrange the villages in a taluka which shall constitute a saza;
and the sazas in a taluka which shall constitute a circle, and may
alter the limits of, or abolish, any saza or circle, so constituted.
(3) The divisions, districts, sub-division, talukas, circles, sazas
and villages existing at the commencement of this Code shall
continue under the names they bear respectively to be the divisions,
districts, sub-divisions, talukas, circles, sazas and villages, unless
otherwise altered under this section.
(4) Every notification or order made under this section shall be
subject to the condition of previous publication; and the provisions of
section 24 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, shall, so far as
may be, apply in relation to such notification or order, as they apply
in relation to rules to be made after previous publication. "
19. A perusal of the above quoted provision shows that section
4(1) of the MLR Code specifies that sub-divisions constitute a district,
12 PIL-ST-24738-2023
talukas constitute a sub-division, villages constitute a taluka and local
areas constitute a village. The State, by notification, in the official
gazette, can alter the limits of any such revenue area by amalgamation
of division or even abolish such a revenue area. But, every such
notification, under section 4(4) of the MLR Code can be issued subject
to the condition of previous publication and further it must comply with
section 24 of the Bombay General Clauses Act.
20. It is significant to note that section 24 of the Bombay
General Clauses Act, provides an elaborate procedure as regards the
manner in which draft of such a notification has to be published,
facilitating raising of objections in respect of the same. The said
elaborate procedure has been incorporated in section 4 of the MLR
Code, so as to ensure that whenever a revenue area, be it a village,
taluka or sub-division within a district, is constituted or re-constituted,
due publicity is given to such proposal concerning the revenue area, in
order to give an opportunity to the affected persons in such revenue
areas, to raise objections, if any. It is to be understood that the said
elaborate requirement pertains to constituting, or re-constituting by
altering the limits of revenue areas, either by amalgamation of division
or even abolishing revenue areas by exercising power under section 4
of the MLR Code.
21. Section 7 of the MLR Code reads as follows :-
13 PIL-ST-24738-2023
"7. Revenue officers in district.--
(1) The State Government shall appoint a Collector for each
district (including the City of Bombay) who shall be in charge of
the revenue administration thereof; and a Tahsildar for each
taluka who shall be the chief officer entrusted with the local
revenue administration of a taluka.
(2) The State Government may appoint one or more Additional
Collectors and in each district (including the City of Bombay)
and so many Assistant Collectors and Deputy Collectors (with
such designations such as "First", "Second", "Supernumerary",
etc. Assistants as may be expressed in the order of their
appointment), one or more Naib-Tahsildars in a taluka, and one
or more Additional Tahsildars or Naib-Tahsildars therein and
such other persons (having such designations) to assist the
revenue officers as it may deem expedient.
(3) Subject to the general orders of the State Government, the
Collector may place any Assistant or Deputy Collector in charge
of one or more sub-divisions of a district, or may himself retain
charge thereof. Such Assistant or Deputy Collector may also be
called a Sub-Divisional Officer.
(4) The Collector may appoint to each district as many persons
as he thinks fit to be Circle Officers and Circle Inspectors to be
in charge of a Circle, and one or more Talathis for a saza, and
one or more Kotwals or other village servants for each village or
group of villages, as he may deem fit.
Collectors and Deputy Collectors (with such designations such
as "First", "Second", "Supernumerary", etc. Assistants as may
be expressed in the order of their appointment), one or more
Naib-Tahsildars in a taluka, and one or more Additional
Tahsildars or Naib-Tahsildars therein and such other persons
(having such designations) to assist the revenue officers as it
may deem expedient.
(3) Subject to the general orders of the State Government, the
Collector may place any Assistant or Deputy Collector in charge
of one or more sub-divisions of a district, or may himself retain
14 PIL-ST-24738-2023
charge thereof. Such Assistant or Deputy Collector may also be
called a Sub-Divisional Officer.
(4) The Collector may appoint to each district as many persons
as he thinks fit to be Circle Officers and Circle Inspectors to be
in charge of a Circle, and one or more Talathis for a saza, and
one or more Kotwals or other village servants for each village or
group of villages, as he may deem fit."
22. The above quoted provision pertains to Revenue Officers
in districts and it specifically provides for appointment of one or more
Additional Tahsildars or Naib Tahsildars. Additional Tahsildars can be
appointed for assisting the Tahsildars and such appointments can be
made by the State Government as per the expediency of the situation.
It is to be kept in mind that appointments of Additional Tahsildars to
assist the Tahsildars, is for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of
administration and obviously, it does not amount to creating a new
revenue area. It is within the same revenue area that Additional
Tahsildars can be appointed to assist the Tahsildars.
23. Section 13 of the MLR Code reads as follows :-
"13. Powers and duties of revenue officers.--
(1) The revenue officers of and above the rank of a Tahsildar
(not being an Additional Commissioner, Assistant
Commissioner, Additional Collector or Additional Tahsildar),
shall exercise the powers and discharge the duties and
functions conferred and imposed on them respectively under
this Code or under any law for the time being in force, and so
far as is consistent therewith, all such other powers, duties and
functions of appeal, superintendence and control within their
respective jurisdiction; and over the officers subordinate to
15 PIL-ST-24738-2023
them as may from time to time be prescribed by the State
Government.
Provided that, the Collector may also exercise
throughout his district all the powers and discharge all the
duties and functions conferred or imposed on an Assistant or
Deputy Collector under this Code or under any law for the time
being in force and a Tahsildar shall also exercise such powers
as may be delegated to him by the Collectors under the general
or special orders of the state Government.
Explanation. -- In this proviso, the expression, "a
Tahsildar" shall include, and shall be deemed always to have
been included, the expression "an Additional Tahsildar".
(2) The revenue officers aforesaid shall also, subject to the
control and general or special orders of the State Government,
exercise such powers and discharge such duties and functions,
as the State Government may by an order in writing confer or
impose on them for the purpose only of carrying out the
provisions of any law for the time being in force, and so far as is
consistent therewith.
(3) The Additional Commissioner and the Assistant
Commissioner, and the Additional Collector and the Additional
Tahsildar shall each exercise within his jurisdiction or part
thereof powers and discharge such duties and functions of the
Commissioner, the Collector or, as the case may be, the
Tahsildar under the provisions of this Code or under any law for
the time being in force, as the State Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, direct in this behalf.
(4) The Sub-Divisional Officer shall subject to the provisions of
Chapter XIII perform all the duties and functions and exercise
all the powers conferred upon a Collector by this Code or any
law for the time being in force, in relation to the sub-division in
his charge :
Provided that, the Collector may whenever he may
deem fit direct any such Sub-Divisional Officer not to perform
certain duties or exercise certain powers and may reserve the
same to himself or assign them to any Assistant or Deputy
Collector subordinate to the Collector :
Provided further that, to such Assistant or Deputy
Collector who is not placed in charge of a sub-division, the
16 PIL-ST-24738-2023
Collector shall, under the general orders of the State
Government, assign as such particular duties and powers as he
may from time to time deem fit.
(5) Subject to the orders of the State Government and of the
Commissioner the Collector may assign to a Naib-Tahsildar
within his local limits such of the duties, functions and powers of
a Tahsildar as he may from time to time deem fit.
(6) Subject to such general orders as may from time to time be
passed by the Commissioner or Collector, a Tahsildar or Naib-
Tahsildar may employ any of his subordinates to perform any
portion of his ministerial duties :
Provided that, all acts and orders of his subordinates
when so employed shall be liable to revision and confirmation
by such Tahsildar or Naib-Tahsildar.
(7) In all matters not specially provided for by law, the revenue
officers shall act according to the instructions of the State
Government."
24. The above quoted provision pertains to powers and duties
of Revenue Officers and this provision specifically refers to the Office of
the Tahsildar. It is further provided that the expression 'Tahsildar' shall
include 'Additional Tahsildar', as per section 13(3) of the MLR Code.
The State Government, by notification in the official gazette, can
appoint Additional Tahsildar, for exercising the jurisdiction and powers
as also discharge duties and functions of the Tahsildar. The notification
in that regard can direct as to the extent of jurisdiction, as also powers
and duties and functions, to be exercised by the Additional Tahsildar.
17 PIL-ST-24738-2023
25. Thus, the State Government, by exercising powers under
sections 7 and 13 of the MLR Code, can provide for appointment of
Additional Tahsildar, to assist the Tahsildar and also further specify the
extent of jurisdiction, powers, duties and functions to be exercised by
the Additional Tahsildar, to assist the Tahsildar. It is within the domain
of the State Government, to undertake such an exercise, obviously with
the intention of increasing the efficiency of administration.
26. In the present case, the documents on record filed
alongwith the affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 i.e.
the State authorities show that notification dated 17.08.2023, was
issued by order and in the name of the Honourable Governor of the
State of Maharashtra, exercising powers under section 13(3) of the
MLR Code. By the said notification, it was directed that Additional
Tahsildar of Kasar Shirsi, Taluka - Nilanga, District - Latur, shall
exercise powers and discharge all duties and functions conferred upon
the Tahsildar Nilanga, Taluka - Nilanga, District - Latur under the
provisions of the MLR Code. The Additional Tahsildar, Kasar Shirsi, is
to do so within the area of jurisdiction specified by the State
Government. By Government resolution dated 18.07.2023, the State
Government directed creation of an independent office of Additional
Tahsildar, to assist the Tahsildar, Nilanga. The office of the Additional
Tahsildar was directed to be located at Kasar Shirsi and in the preface
18 PIL-ST-24738-2023
of the Government resolution, it was specifically recorded that the said
measure was necessary in the light of increased population of Taluka -
Nilanga, District - Latur, as well as other factors like big market place in
the said Taluka. The Government resolution also specifically provided
for 63 villages of the Taluka to be brought under the jurisdiction of the
Additional Tahsildar and post of one Additional Tahsildar with one
Clerk-cum-Typist was sanctioned for the office of the Additional
Tahsildar at Kasar Shirsi in Taluka - Nilanga. The Government
resolution also provided for 99 villages to be retained with the office of
the Tahsildar, Nilanga. Ancillary directions were issued in the said
Government resolution.
27. We find that the true purport of the Government resolution
dated 18.07.2023, is to the effect that office of Additional Tahsildar has
been created and extent of jurisdiction alongwith the powers, duties
and functions to be exercised by the said Additional Tahsildar at Kasar
Shirsi, to assist the Tahsildar at Nilanga, have been specified. The said
action of the State does not create a revenue area, as contemplated
under section 4 of the MLR Code. As noted herein-above, section 4 of
the MLR Code provides for revenue areas such as districts, sub-
divisions, talukas, villages and local areas.
28. The impugned action of the State, in the present case, in
no manner, creates or constitutes a revenue area, either by altering the
19 PIL-ST-24738-2023
limits or dividing the same or amalgamating revenue areas and it does
not even amount to abolition of any revenue area, as contemplated
under section 4(1) of the MLR Code. Instead, the impugned action of
the State, simply creates an office of the Additional Tahsildar to assist
the Tahsildar for reasons specifically recorded. Since the exercise of
power, by issuing the Government resolution dated 18.07.2023 and
notification dated 17.08.2023, is specifically sourced in the power
available as per sections 7 and 13 of the MLR Code, the contentions
raised on behalf of the petitioners, cannot be accepted.
29. The requirement of previous publication and applicability of
section 24 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, insisted upon by
the petitioners, is based on a mis-conception that in the present case, a
revenue area has been constituted or created by the State while
undertaking the impugned action. The whole basis of the contentions
raised on behalf of the petitioners proceeds on such mis-conception
and, therefore, the said contentions cannot be accepted.
30. It is for the aforesaid reason, that the ratio of the judgment
in the case of Dr. Avinash Ramkrishna Kashiwar and others V. State of
Maharashtra and others (supra) cannot apply to the facts of the present
case. In the said case, the State had issued a notification specifically
exercising powers under section 4 of the MLR Code, proposing to
20 PIL-ST-24738-2023
constitute a separate sub-division for two talukas and notifying the
location of headquarter of division at one particular taluka. The final
notification indeed constituted a separate sub-division as proposed, but
the location of the headquarter was not in terms of the proposed
notification. It is in the backdrop of such a controversy pertaining to
constitution or carving out of a specific revenue area that the Division
Bench of this Court, in the said case, applied section 4(4) of the MLR
Code to hold against the State Government. Since the facts in the
present case are clearly distinguishable in the light of the observations
made herein-above, the judgment in the case of Dr. Avinash
Ramkrishna Kashiwar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
(supra), cannot be relied upon by the petitioners.
31. As regards the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Santosh Suresh Patil (supra), there is no reference
to any notification issued under section 13(3) of the MLR Code and
reference is only made to a Government resolution. There are no
contentions raised which are considered by Division Bench of this
Court in the said case in the context of sections 7 and 13 of the MLR
Code. Hence, the said judgment can also not come to the aid of the
petitioners herein.
21 PIL-ST-24738-2023
32. It was also sought to be suggested on behalf of the
petitioner that the impugned action of the State was politically
motivated and in that context, a reference was made to certain
communications exchanged between the Officers of the respondent -
State. This Court has perused the said documents. A proper
appreciation of the same only shows that when a request was made by
a Member of Legislative Assembly, for considering appointment of
office of Additional Tahsildar at Kasar Shirsi in Taluka - Nilanga, the
District Collector directed Sub-Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry
into the matter and submit a report. The Sub Divisional Officer indeed
prepared a report, giving the details of the geographical area of Taluka
- Nilanga, its population, number of police stations, number of revenue
circles, as also the number of talathis in villages. It is after such a
report was submitted that the District Collector sent a recommendation
to the State, for taking appropriate action in the matter.
33. Considering all this material, the State Government issued
the Government resolution dated 18.07.2023 and the notification in the
official gazette dated 17.08.2023, appointing Additional Tahsildar, to
assist the Tahsildar, Nilanga and directed that the location of the office
of the Additional Tahsildar shall be at Kasar Shirsi.
22 PIL-ST-24738-2023
34. This Court finds that the said exercise having been carried
out in terms of the statutory provisions i.e. sections 7 and 13 of the
MLR Code, no fault can be found with the same on the basis of
contentions raised by the petitioners that are relevant in a completely
different factual situation of creation or constitution of a revenue area.
As the present case does not concern creation or constitution of a
revenue area, by exercising of power under section 4 of the MLR
Code, the challenge raised in the present petition, cannot be accepted.
35. An attempt was also made on behalf of the petitioners to
claim that the location of the office of Additional Tahsildar at Kasar
Shirsi, would be inconvenient for certain villagers. But, if the said
contention of the petitioners was to be accepted, then the creation of
office of Additional Tahsildar and specifying jurisdiction of such officer
under sections 7 and 13 of the MLR Code would restrict the office of
the Additional Tahsildar only at the location where the office of the
Tahsildar is already located. This demonstrates the fallacy in the
aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioners.
36. It is for the State to take appropriate decision, by
exercising statutory power under sections 7 and 13 of the MLR Code
with the object of increasing the efficiency of administration. The
Government resolution specifically records that establishment of office
23 PIL-ST-24738-2023
of the Additional Tahsildar at Kasar Shirsi is found to be expedient in
the light of increased population of Taluka - Nilanga and considering
the big size of its market place. This Court exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not to supplant its wisdom on
such matters of administration, which is within the domain of the
Executive. Interference would have been warranted if there was
defective exercise of statutory power or if arbitrariness was writ large in
the impugned action of the State. No such factor has been
demonstrated by the petitioners and, therefore, the present petition
does not deserve favourable consideration. It is also to be noted that
there is no challenge raised to the notification dated 17.08.2023
published in the official gazette.
37. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that with the
passage of time, infrastructure for the office of the Additional Tahsildar
at Kasar Shirsi has been already established. Therefore, we find no
merit in the present petition.
38. Accordingly, the Public Interest Litigation is dismissed.
39. Rule is discharged.
40. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
[ Y.G. KHOBRAGADE ] [ MANISH PITALE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
