Judgment WP-6204-2011 J..odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6204 OF 2011 PETITIONER : Smt. Mandabai Prabhakarrao Thakre, Aged 65 years, Occupation Agriculturist, resident of Tembha, Taluka District Amravati. ...VERSUS… RESPONDENTS 1) The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati 2) The Sub Divisional Officer, Amravati. Amendment carried out as per Court’s Order dt. 21/07/2026. 3) Smt. Tulsabai Raghupatrao Thakre, Through its Lrs. 3(1) Satish Raghupatrao Thakre (son), resident of Tembha, presently residing at Narayan Nagar, Amravati 3(2) Smt. Jijabai Hanumantrao Bonde, aged 75 years, r/o. Talwel, Tq. Chandur Bazar, District Amravati (daughter). 3(3) Smt. Arunabai Krushnarao Kalmegh, aged 60 years, r/o. Laxmi Grahampeth, Mudliar Nagar, Moti Nagar, Amravati (daughter). 3(4) Smt. Pratibha Nandkishore Borkhede, aged 52 years, r/o near Dr. Sudha Deshmukh Hospital, Camp Road, Amravati. (daughter). 3(5) Smt. Rekha Anilrao Kale, Aged 50 years, r/o. Samruddhi Sankul, MAAHADA complex, Civil Lines, Nagpur. Pvf 2026:BHC-NAG:13843 Judgment WP-6204-2011 J..odt 2 4) Shri Sandeep Krushnarao Thakre, aged major, Resident of Radha Nagar, Amravati. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S.C. Joshi, AGP for Respondent/State. Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for Respondent No.4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J . DATE : 13/10/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties. 2. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 10.06.2011 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, in Revision Petition No.380/PFG/2008-09 of Tembha, Tq. & Distt. Amravati, thereby, confirming the order dated 20.01.2009, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati, in Case No.40/Tembha-20/2006-07. 3. In the present matter, the facts which are brought to the notice of this Court, are as under :- 4. The petitioner is the owner of field Gat No.17, Mouza Tembha, Taluka and District Amravati, admeasuring 1H 9R. The said field is adjacent to field Gat No.16, Mouza Tembha, Taluka and District Amravati, admeasuring 1H 37R, more particularly, situated towards southern side of field Gat No.17. It is submitted that the field Gat No.16 is total admeasuring 1H 37R. Out of which respondent No.3-Smt. Pvf Judgment WP-6204-2011 J..odt 3 Tulsabai Raghupatrao Thakre, is the owner of land admeasuring 0.56R of the land and said land is purchased by the present petitioner from respondent No.3, vide registered Sale Deed dated 09.06.2006. 5. Respondent No.4-Shri Sandeep Krushnarao Thakre, however, raised an objection thereby, stating that he had purchased land admeasuring 0.81R out of field Gat No.16 from Laxman Domaji Badse, vide registered Sale Deed dated 25.05.2006. As such, he being adjacent owner of land, same ought to have been sold to him. Therefore, transaction between the petitioner and respondent No.3 dated 09.06.2006 is hit by the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”). Accordingly, he raised an objection before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati, challenging the said transactions. 6. The said application which was filed by respondent No.4 was replied by the present petitioner, wherein, the petitioner has stated that land admeasuring 0.56R out of field Gat No.16 is adjacent to field Gat No.17 land admeasuring 1H 9R situate at Mouza : Tembha, Tahsil and District Amravati, of which the petitioner became the owner by way of family partition in between herself, her husband and her sons. Accordingly, her name was duly recorded in the 7/12 extract in respect Pvf Judgment WP-6204-2011 J..odt 4 of Gat No.17/4. Therefore, on the basis of this submission, it is stated that she has became the owner of the said land. 7. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati, after considering the rival submissions, was expected to record reasons as to how he reached to the conclusion that the present petitioner or respondent No.4 are the owners of the adjacent land. But, without doing such exercise as reflected in the impugned order, has reached to the conclusion that the transaction which were taken place between the petitioner and respondent No.3 is hit by Section 7 of the Act. Consequently, transaction dated 08.06.2006 held to be illegal as per the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. 8. The said order, was challenged by the present petitioner by way of Revision before the learned Additional Commissioner. Before the learned Additional Commissioner, the petitioner raised a specific objection that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati, had called for a report from village Talathi, which was submitted on 24.12.2007. But, the said report was not accepted by petitioner and a request was made to call a fresh report from the Revenue Inspector. Accordingly, the Revenue Inspector, visited the spot on 05.07.2008 and he drawn map of actual position on the spot and submitted his report to the learned Sub- Pvf Judgment WP-6204-2011 J..odt 5 Divisional Officer, Amravati, on 16.07.2008. According to him, a perusal of both these reports dated 24.12.2007 and 16.07.2008, submitted by village Talathi and the Revenue Inspector, respectively, it is seen that there are major variances on the factual aspects. Therefore, the same needs re-consideration. 9. The learned Additional Commissioner, Amravati, was therefore, expected to consider all these controversies by recording the proper reasons in the matter. However, the learned Additional Commissioner, Amravati, by cryptic order dated 10.06.2011 dismissed the revision. It is only recorded that permission of the Competent Authority was not obtained therefore, sale deed dated 08.06.2006 is illegal. 10. It is pertinent to note that while deciding proceeding under the Act, the Authorities should decide whether the case of the person falls under the exception carved out under Section 7(2) of the Act, or not. For that purpose, it is expected to lead evidence before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, and parties should permit to produce the relevant documents to establish the fact that the land which is purchased by him, is adjacent to the land owned by him. But, here in the present case, no such exercise is undertaken by the Authorities. Pvf Judgment WP-6204-2011 J..odt 6 11. Upon perusal of the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Amravati, it nowhere shows application of judicial mind while deciding the Revision. There are no specific findings recorded, though there was a specific ground that two reports received by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati, are having a major variances and pleading that both the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 are claiming to be adjacent owner of land in dispute. 12. In the light of controversy involved in the matter, it is clear that both the Authorities below have failed to consider the factual aspects involved in the matter and merely, on the basis of oral submissions have decided the proceedings. 13. In view of the above, orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, as well as learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati, needs interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the matter. Accordingly, the following order is passed :- O R D E R (i) The Writ Petition No.6204 of 2011 is partly allowed. (ii) The order dated 10.06.2011 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, in Revision Petition No.380/PFG/2008-09 of Tembha, Tq. & Distt. Amravati, is hereby quashed and set-aside. Pvf Judgment WP-6204-2011 J..odt 7 (iii) The impugned order dated 20.01.2009, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati, in Case No.40/Tembha-20/2006-07 is hereby quashed and set-aside. (iii) The proceedings bearing Case No.40/Tembha-20/2006-07 are restored to the file of learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati, for fresh consideration. (iv) The parties are directed to appear before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati, on 29.10.2026. (v) The parties are at liberty to file relevant documents and lead evidence in support of their submissions. All issues raised by the petitioner are kept open. (vi) The learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati, is directed to decide the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before him. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (PRAVIN S. PATIL, J . ) 𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁 Pvf