Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2023 DAILYLAW 2913 (BOM)

DEVRAJ BABASAHEB PATIL AND ANR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE REVENUE DEPT. AND ORS

WP/6472/2023 · 2026-08-18

body2023

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

16-WP-6472-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6472 OF 2023 Devraj Babasaheb Patil And Another ...Petitioners. Versus The State Of Maharashtra Through The Revenue Dept. And Others ...Respondents. —————— Mr. P. B. Shah a/w Gunjan Shah & Rahul Patil for the Petitioners. Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Manoj Patil a/w Siddhesh Kadam i/b Akash Murudkar for Respondent No. 7. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : August 18, 2026. P. C. : 1. The challenge in the present petition was to the division of Paal village, Taluka Karad, District Satara, without following the prescribed procedure under Section 4(4) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. 2. Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, points out the aidavit dated 18.10.2023 iled by the Tehsildar, Karad, District Satara, stating that there is no draft notiication which has been published under Section 4(4). If any such notiication is published as far as the declaration of the said village as an independent revenue area is concerned, the petitioners and all other afected villagers will get an Harish 1 of 2 HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Digitally signed by HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Date: 2026.08.18 19:54:09 +0530 16-WP-6472-2023.doc opportunity to submit their objections. Therefore, the petition is premature. He further points out the communication of 13.06.2023 from the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, stating that as there is opposition to the proposal by substantial villagers, the division of the village as an independent revenue village is not recommended for now. He further submits that subsequent to this notiication of 2023, there is no action which has been taken and there is no division. 3. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. 4. It is open for the petitioners to revive the cause in the event the said Paal village is sought to be set up as an independent revenue area. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Harish 2 of 2