Bombay High Court
Smita Balasaheb Madhawai vs Bhausaheb Rupchand Madhawai And Ors on 22 August, 2022
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
4 wp-2699-22.doc
BDP-SPS-TAC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2699 OF 2022
Smita Balasaheb Madhawai ..... Petitioner.
V/s
Bhausaheb Rupchand Madhawai
and Ors. ..... Respondents.
----
Mr. Rakesh Kumar a/w Akash Giri i/b M/s Legal Vision for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Rameshwar Gite a/w Rohit Garade for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mrs. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6.
----
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE: AUGUST 22, 2022
P.C.:-
1] In the name of Petitioner, it appears that partition under Section
85 of the Maharashtra Land Revnue Code ("MLRC") was sought by co- owners including that of the Petitioner, which was allowed by the order of Tahsildar on 17th July, 2009. Pursuant thereto Mutation Entry was carried out in the name of Respondents.
2] It appears that the Petitioner feeling agrrieved, preferred proceedings under Section 247 of the MLRC, which was time barred. Sub-Divisional Officer in the said proceedings has condoned delay of 11 years on two accounts viz (a) that notice in the partition proceedings was recevied by co-owner Shantaram and not the 1/2 4 wp-2699-22.doc Petitioner and (b) there is no sufficient material to infer independent notice to the Petitioner.
3] Contention of the Counsel for the Respondents is, proceedings under Sectioln 85 were initiated by the Pettiioner herself under her signature and Tahsildar while exercising powers under the said provision has followed due procedure prescribed under the provisions of Section 85 of the MLRC.
4] In the aforesaid backdrop, it will be appropriate in my opinion to direct the learned AGP to produce original record of proceedings in relation to passing of the order impugned under Section 85 by the Tahasildar.
5] As such, stand over to 7th September, 2022.
( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. ) 2/2