Bombay High Court
Salim Gaffar Ali Shaikh vs Revenue Department on 17 February, 2026
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
ssm/shiv 11-wp13181.23.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.13181 OF 2023
Salim Gaffar Shaikh & Anr. .....Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .....Respondents
__________________________________________
Mr. Salim Gaffar Shaikh, Petitioner No.1 party-in-person.
Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Vishwali V. Botle, i/by Mr. A. R. Gole for Respondent Nos.7 to 12.
Mr. Amol Badade, Dy. Superintendent of Land Records, Vasai present.
__________________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
DATE : 17th FEBRUARY, 2026. P.C.:- 1) The case in hand depicts pathetic state of affairs in the Revenue Department of the State. 1.1) Present Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India on 24th August, 2023, for a relief of direction to comply with the Order dated 30th May, 2017 (Exh-D) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Vasai Division, directing the Tahsildar Vasai to do a particular act as contemplated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (for short, "MLRC"); for considering the Petitioner's representation dated 8 th 1/5 ::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:12:16 ::: ssm/shiv 11-wp13181.23.doc June, 2023 and for other consequential reliefs.
1.2) The Tahsildar, Vasai by its Order dated 3 rd February, 2022 (Exh- E) had in turn, directed the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Taluka Vasai, District Palghar i.e. the Respondent No.6 herein to conduct measurement of suit lands. Respondent No.5 i.e. the Tahasildar, Vasai in its Order dated 3rd February, 2022 in unnumbered Para No.1 of internal Page No.3 has stated that, though the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records was granted police protection, on earlier occasion the measurement of suit lands could not be carried out.
1.3) Perusal of record further indicates that, in an Affidavit dated 2nd November, 2023 and in particular paragraph No.6 thereof, the Respondent No.5 has stated that, the present case is pending with the office of Respondent No.6.
That, the Petitioner has submitted all the necessary documents as called for by the Respondent No.6. The said fact is noted by this Court in Orders dated 21st November, 2024 and 16th December, 2024.
2) Respondent No.6 is personally present in the Court. 2.1) Respondent No.6 in his Affidavit-in-reply dated 22 nd April, 2024, has given various reasons for not complying with the Orders passed by his higher Authorities i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Respondent No.5 i.e. the Tahasildar of Vasai. Ultimately, the result is the measurement of the suit lands is not conducted/completed by the Respondent No.6 till 2/5 ::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:12:16 ::: ssm/shiv 11-wp13181.23.doc today.
2.2) During the course of hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the State by the learned AGP that, for the measurement of suit lands on earlier more than one occasion, police protection was granted, however the measurement of the suit lands could not be effected. He on instructions from the Respondent No.6 submitted that, for providing police protection the concerned Applicant i.e. the Petitioner herein has to pay necessary monetary charges to the Police Department. Upon a query by this Court, under which provisions of the MLRC the said amount has to be paid, a conspicuous silence was maintained by the learned AGP. Upon a further query by this Court, the learned AGP conceded to the said fact that, there is no such provision in the MLRC.
2.3) After perusing the record, we are astonished to note that, the Orders passed by the Revenue Authorities constituted under the MLRC are being frustrated by the Respondent No.6 by raising specious pleas that, the other Respondents are creating law and order problem while conducting the measurement and the police are unable to control the situation. Such pleas are unacceptable from and on behalf of the State, which claims to be the progressive State in our country.
2.4) We are unable to comprehend a situation that, despite there being police protection has been granted to the Respondent No.6, he is unable to conduct measurement of the suit lands. If the Respondent No.6 3/5 ::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:12:16 ::: ssm/shiv 11-wp13181.23.doc was of the opinion that insufficient police protection is provided by the local police, in that situation he ought to have submitted a report to the Collector of the concerned District demanding more police protection. The Collector of the concerned District in such an eventuality, would have requisitioned for additional police force if the local police were unable to provide adequate police protection.
2.5) It clearly appears to us that, the Respondent No.6 is unable to perform his lawful duty or is trying to shrug off his responsibility in performing his lawful duty, for the reasons best known to himself. It prima facie appears to us that, the Respondent No.6 has patently failed in performing his lawful duty which law mandates. It prima facie also appears to us that, the Respondent No.6 is acting in high handed manner and is considering himself to be an Appellate Authority over the Orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Tahasildar who are the statutory Authorities under the MLRC. It is a clear case of insubordination.
3) Before we make further comments upon the functioning of the Respondent No.6, we deem it appropriate to bring above noted facts to the notice of the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forests Department, Government of Maharashtra, the top most Executive of the Revenue Department of the State.
3.1) We therefore direct the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forests Department, Government of Maharashtra to file his detailed 4/5 ::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:12:16 ::: ssm/shiv 11-wp13181.23.doc reply to the Petition. The said reply be filed within a period of 3 weeks from today. We also direct the Additional Chief Secretary of the said Department, not to delegate his powers to any other subordinate Officer while filing its reply. If the Additional Chief Secretary of the said Department comes to a conclusion that, the Respondent No.6 is deliberately not complying with the Orders passed by his Superior Officers in that event, we expect from the the Additional Chief Secretary of the said Department to adopt stern appropriate remedial measures available under the law against him.
4) As far as false statement made by Respondent No.6, Mr. Amol Badade is concerned, regarding payment of police protection charges, after perusing reply of the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forests Department, Government of Maharashtra, we may consider to initiate necessary proceedings of perjury against him.
5) Stand over to 18th March, 2026.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
Digitally signed
by SANJIV
SANJIV SHARNAPPA
SHARNAPPA MASHALKAR
MASHALKAR Date:
2026.03.04
20:07:44 +0530
5/5
::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:12:16 :::