65.WP.8031.2016.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8031 OF 2016 Sunita Gangadhar Suryawanshi ...Petitioner Versus Shankar Kamanna Samsatte Died Lrs Shivaji Shankar Samsatte and Others ...Respondents *** Mr. Mayur Subhedar H/F Mr. A. S. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent – State. *** CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : APRIL 08, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 03rd May 2016 passed by the Tahsildar, Dharmabad in case no. 2015/Jama/ROR/CR-03, whereby the application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that the State Government had already decided the matter by order dated 27th June 2014. 3. The learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the learned Tahsildar grossly erred in rejecting the application filed by the Shrikant Malani 2026:BHC-AUG:18476 65.WP.8031.2016.odt petitioner holding that the state government had already decided the matter, though this Court had remanded the matter to him for fresh adjudication. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, it appears that this Court, by order dated 04th September 2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 6951 of 2014 (Smt. Sunita w/o Gangadhar Suryawanshi Vs. Shri. Shankar s/o Kamanna Samsatte and ors.), had set aside the order dated 27th June 2014 passed by the Secretary and Special Work Officer (Appeals), Revenue and Forest Department, Maharashtra and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration. 5. The Tahsildar was, therefore, expected to decide the proceedings afresh. However, the Tahsildar has rejected the application by observing that the State Government had already decided the matter. This clearly reflects non-application of mind on the part of the Tahsildar. In view of the above, the order dated 03rd May 2016 passed by the Tahsildar is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 03rd May 2016 passed by the Tahsildar, Dharmabad in case no. 2015/Jama/ROR/CR-03, is hereby quashed and set aside. Shrikant Malani 65.WP.8031.2016.odt 7. Considering the conduct of the Tahsildar, costs of ₹50,000/- are imposed upon the Tahsildar – Shrikant Bhujbal, which shall be deposited in this Court from his own pocket, and it is made clear that he shall not seek reimbursement of the said amount. 8. The Tahsildar, Dharmabad is directed to decide the proceedings afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, within a period of four months from today. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) Shrikant Malani