[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Santosh Vinayak Joshi And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Revenue And ... on 10 March, 2026
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2026:BHC-AS:11708
9.WP.17400.2025+.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.17400 OF 2025
Santosh Vinayak Joshi and Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. Respondents
....................
Mr. Kishor Patil a/w. Mr. Amol Mhatre and Ms. Sonal Dabholkar,
Advocates for Petitioners.
Ms. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Ambadas Chatuphale a/w. Ms. Regina Correia, Advocates for
Respondent No.3.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : MARCH 10, 2026
P.C.:
1. Mentioned out of turn.
2. Heard Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Petitioners, Ms.
Nimbalkar, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.
Chatuphale, learned Advocates for Respondent No.3.
3. After hearing the Petitioners and the State on 18.11.2025
following order was passed:-
"1. Not on Board. Mentioned by way of filing praecipe dated 18.11.2025.
Perused the praecipe.
2. Heard Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Ms. Srivastava,
learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. At the outset Mr. Patil requested the Court for leave to amend the
Petition and change the nomenclature of Respondent - statutory Officer who is
arrayed as Respondent in the present Petition. Leave to amend and correct the correct
cause title to substitute the name of Deputy Director of Land Record and insert the
name of Superintendent of Land Record is granted by the Court. Necessary
amendment is permitted to be carried out within a period of one week from today in
the record of the Court. Reverification stands dispensed with.
4. Further leave to amend is also granted to annex the copy of Application
made by Petitioner before Respondent No.2 as Exhibit to the Petition. Petitioner is
permitted to annex it as Exhibit and Department shall allow the said amendment to be
1 of 5
9.WP.17400.2025+.doc
carried out within a period of one week from today. Reverification stands dispensed
with.
5. Prima facie, on reading the impugned order dated 27.10.2025
appended at page No.252, there appear to be inter se dispute of demarcation / sub-
division of the subject property between the parties.
6. One of the submission advanced by Mr. Patil is that he is not averse to
private Respondents taking / demarcating / sub-dividing their share rather to the
extent of their share in the subject Gat No.71 in which parties are claiming sub-
division qua their respective holdings on the basis of their sale deeds.
7. Private Respondents shall consider the submissions recorded
hereinabove on behalf of Petitioners and accordingly apprise the Court on the next
adjourned date.
8. Hence, issue notice to Respondents. Learned AGP enters appearance
on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and waives service on behalf of Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
9. Humdast permitted. In addition to Court's notice, Petitioner is directed
to serve the Respondents a copy of this order and copy of Writ Petition and inform
about the next date of hearing by any permissible mode of service and file appropriate
affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof.
10. Respondents are directed to file Affidavit-in-Reply on or before the next
adjourned date.
11. In view of reasons given in the impugned order, private Respondents
are directed to remain present.
12. Stand over to 02nd December, 2025.
13. Praecipe is disposed."
4. In response to the said order the private Respondents namely
namely contesting Respondent No.3 has filed Affidavit-in-Reply dated
05.03.2026. Paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the said Affidavit read thus:-
"9. I say that the oral proposal made by the Petitioners through
their Counsel "that he is not averse to private Respondents taking /
demarcating / sub-dividing their share rather to the extent of their
share in the subject Gat No.71 in which are parties are claiming sub
division qua their respective holdings on the basis of their sale deeds"
is concerned, if the Petitioners are ready and willing to demarcate the
area adm. 0 H-5 R-76 P in favour of these Respondents i.e. Opal
Builders as purchased by them in the year 2012, in that event the
matter can be remitted back to the Deputy Superintendent of Land
Record for passing appropriate Orders.
10. I say that if the Petitioners are not agreeable to the above proposal, the
Petitioners are bound by the provisions of Section 85 of the Code, 1966,
which reads as under.
"85. Partition: (1) Subject to the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of
Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, a holding may be
partitioned on the decree of a civil court or an application of coholders in the
manner hereinafter provided.
2 of 5
9.WP.17400.2025+.doc
(2) If in any holding there are more than one coholder, any such coholder
may apply to the Collector for a partition of his share in the holding:
Provided that, where any question as to title is raised, no such partition shall
be made until such question has been decided by a civil suit."
In view of the above provisions the Ld. Dy Superintendent of Land Records,
Vasai had directed both the parties to approach the Competent Court and as
such the Impugned Order is in accordance with law. Therefore, I respectfully
submit that no interference of any nature whatsoever is required if the
Petitioners are not agreeable to the proposal made by me as set out
hereinabove."
5. In view of the above Mr. Patil on instructions submits that
Petitioners are ready and willing to abide by the directions contained
in paragraph No.6 of the order dated 18.11.2025 and agreeable to the
proposal for remanding the matter back to the Deputy Superintendent
of Land Record for survey, demarcation, measurement and sub-division
of respective holdings including boundaries of Petitioners and private
Respondent No.3 in respect of their holding in Gat Nos.71/1, 71/12,
71/3A and 71/3B.
6. In that view of the matter, following order is passed:-
(i) The impugned order dated 27.10.2025 stands set aside
by consent of both the parties;
(ii) The Deputy Superintendent of Land Record /
Superintendent of Land Record / Talathi whoever is the
concerned statutory in-charge officer is directed to carry
out exercise of survey, demarcation, measurement and
sub-division of the subject properties belonging to the
parties in accordance with law and the provisions and
Rules of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for
3 of 5
9.WP.17400.2025+.doc
short 'the said Code');
(iii) The charges for carrying out the aforesaid exercise shall
be deposited by the parties equally;
(iv) The statutory Officers shall employ the latest technique
for survey, demarcation, measurement and sub-division
and ensure that the said exercise is completed as
expeditiously and in any event within a period of four
weeks from today in accordance with law;
(v) Both parties shall cooperate with the statutory officer
and their staff at the time of survey without entering
into any arguments with them and point out their
respective documentary evidence and / or boundaries
as stated therein and leave the exercise of survey,
measurement and sub-division to be done by statutory
Officers in accordance with the provisions of the said
Code;
(vi) If any party apart from Petitioners and / or private
Respondent is required to be given notice, the same
shall be done by the concerned statutory Authorities in
accordance with law.
7. Both parties shall appear before the Deputy Superintendent
4 of 5
9.WP.17400.2025+.doc
of Land Record, Vasai on 12.03.2026 at 11:00 a.m. with a copy of this
order.
8. All parties are directed to act on server copy of this order.
9. All contentions of both the parties are expressly kept open.
10. With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.03.10
18:01:38 +0530
5 of 5
