(1) 32-WP-1960-2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1960/2017 HARISH S/O MOTIDAS UDASI VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND FOREST, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI AND OTHERS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R.S Kalangiwale, Advocate for the Petitioner (s). Mr. S.B. Bissa, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026. 1. On 31.08.2026, the following order was passed : “Heard for some time. 2. It appears that by notice dated 15.01.2016, Respondent No. 2-Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati (“SDO”), called upon the petitioner to appear before him for hearing in respect of use of the land under question. According to Respondent No. 2-SDO, the land was used for commercial purposes without obtaining permission. 3. The petitioner filed reply on 26.02.2016. Thereafter, on 19.03.2016, Respondent No. 2-SDO issued a notice of demand. 4. The argument is that the notice of demand has been issued without considering the contentions of the petitioner submitted on 26.02.2016. 5. Learned AGP seeks time to take instructions on this point. 6. Stand over to 03.09.2026.” 2. In response, the learned AGP fairly submits that the petitioner is right in saying that the notice of demand has been issued without considering the contentions of the petitioner submitted on 26.02.2016. 3. That being so, the impugned order is unsustainable. The petition is accordingly partly allowed. The notices dated 15.01.2016, 19.03.2016, 15.11.2016, 07.01.2017 and 18.03.2017 issued by Respondent No.2-Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati (“SDO”) are quashed and set aside. Kartikeya 2026:BHC-NAG:11613-DB (2) 32-WP-1960-2017 4. The matter is remanded back to Respondent No.2 for consideration afresh in accordance with law and what has been stated in the body of the order. 5. Needless to say that Respondent No.2 shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking a decision. 6. The petitioner shall appear before Respondent No.2 on 10.09.2026, and thereafter, as and when called by Respondent No.2. 7. The petition is disposed of in terms of above with no orders as to costs. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kartikeya