Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Sushil Prakash Wagh vs Baban Shripati Wagh Since Dec Thr Legal ... on 9 March, 2026

Author: Milind N. Jadhav

Bench: Milind N. Jadhav

2026:BHC-AS:11534
                                                                                        15. CIVIL WP-10886-25.odt


       Amberkar

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 10886 OF 2025

                  State Bank of India                       .. Petitioner
                             Versus
                  Hon'ble Minister for Revenue and Forest,
                  Department of Government of Maharashtra &
                  Ors.                                      .. Respondents

                                                      WITH
                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 12137 OF 2025

                  Sushil Prakash Wagh                              .. Petitioner
                              Versus
                  Baban Shripati Wagh
                  (since deceased) through Legal Heirs
                  Tukaram Shripati Wagh & Ors.                     .. Respondents
                                              ....................
                   Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w Ms. Saloni Kapadia & Ms. Daksha Kasekar
                      i/by M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Advocates for Petitioner
                   Ms. P.J. Gavhane, AGP for State
                   Mehernaz Contractor a/w Naomi Mehta, Advocates for Respondent
                    Nos. 9 & 10
                   Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 11 to 17
                   Mr. Chaitanya B. Nikte a/w Ms. Esha Malik, Advocates for
                    Respondent Nos. 19 to 21
                                                            ...................
                                                           CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                                           DATE          : MARCH 09, 2026
                  P. C.:

1. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

2. In the present case, it is prima facie seen that Petitioner Bank is aggrieved in view of the specific directions contained in the impugned order dated 14.10.2024 setting aside the order of learned Deputy 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:58:50 :::

15. CIVIL WP-10886-25.odt Director of Land Records (for short "DDLR") which directed recording of charge of Petitioner Bank on the subject land. Order of DDLR has been set aside by the State without hearing the concerned Bank. Hence the present Petition.

3. Without going into the factual aspects and disputed questions of facts, it would be appropriate if the concerned Bank i.e. Petitioner is heard by State in the challenge maintained to the order passed by DDLR since there is specific direction given in the impugned order which affects the substantive rights of Petitioner Bank in the subject land. Petitioner undertakes to file intervention Application before the State. The same shall be disposed of in accordance with law alongwith the Revision proceedings. Hence impugned order dated 14.10.2024 is quashed and set aside, without giving any imprimatur on merits of the matter. The State is directed to rehear the RTS 3421/590/M.N. 8/L-5 filed under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ("MLRC"). Needless to state that private Respondents represented by Mr. Bhujbal and Ms. Contractor shall also be entitled to be heard by the State in accordance with law. Intervention Application shall be filed by the Bank within a period of 2 weeks from today as apprised by Mr. Kanade. Hearing of Revision Application along with Intervention Application in the challenge to the order passed by DDLR dated 16.01.2020 shall be completed by the 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:58:50 :::

15. CIVIL WP-10886-25.odt State within a period of 16 weeks from today. All contentions raised by private Respondents and Petitioner Bank in the Revision proceedings are expressly kept open. Private Respondents who desire to file Intervention Application to be heard alongwith the Bank by the State are permitted to file the same which shall also be heard and decided by the Revisional Authorities in accordance with law along with challenge to the order passed by the DDLR.

4. With the above directions, present Writ Petition No. 10886 of 2025 is disposed.

5. At this juncture, Mr. Nikte would submit that Writ Petition no. 12137 of 2025 which is slated for hearing tomorrow may also be disposed of in view of the order passed above. Writ Petition No. 12137 of 2025 is taken on record by consent of the parties. Some of the private Respondents have challenged the same order of the DDLR therein. However in view of above order, no further order is required to be passed in the said Petition. Hence, Writ Petition No. 12137 of 2025 is accordingly disposed.

Amberkar                                           [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
                     Digitally signed
                     by RAVINDRA
           RAVINDRA MOHAN
           MOHAN    AMBERKAR
           AMBERKAR Date:
                     2026.03.09
                     18:56:57 +0530




                                                                                      3 of 3



                ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2026                 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:58:50 :::