1 64-WP-8341-14.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8341 OF 2014 PUNJARAM RAGHUNATH BHALEKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Pramod F. Patni AGP for Respondents : Mr. P. D. Patil ... CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 08-09-2026 PER COURT:- 1. This petition challenges the orders, dated 26.08.2011 rendered by respondent No.2 Minister for Revenue, in Case No.3908/385 Case No.118/L-1, dismissing the revision and endorsing order dated 28.10.1996 rendered by respondent No.3 - the Deputy Inspector Land Records, Aurangabad, in respect of land Gut No.149 area 26 Guntha, situated at Nipani, Taluka and District Aurangabad. 2. The original area of the land was 3 Acres 26 Gunthas (corresponding to old Survey No. 55/2), however, following the implementation of the consolidation scheme, the area was erroneously reduced to 3 Acres resulting in a shortfall of 26 Gunthas . 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 7/12 extracts for the period 1959-60 and 1964-65 indicate the area as 3 Acres 26 Gunthas. It is further submitted that the authorities 2026:BHC-AUG:42261 2 64-WP-8341-14.odt below failed to conduct a proper inquiry, while ignoring the record indicating holdings of the petitioner’s post implementation of the scheme, and passed the order under challenge without granting a fair opportunity of hearing. As such, the orders are unsustainable and bereft of reasons. 4. When confronted, the learned A.G.P. fairly concedes the same. 5. In view of the above and considering that the petitioners have been deprived of the opportunity of hearing, the order under challenge needs to be quashed and set aside. 6. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 – Minister for Revenue. 7. Respondent No.2 shall rehear the matter by extending an adequate opportunity of hearing to the respective parties and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 8. The concerned authority shall make an endeavour to decide the same expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH] JUDGE rrd