KSG 23-Wp-6910-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6910 OF 2026 A. K. Enterprises … Petitioner V/s. Deputy Superintendent of Land Record Panvel & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________ Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh a/w Mr. Vaibhav Thorave for the Petitioner. Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl.G.P., a/w Ms. P.B. Chavan, A.G.P. for Respondent-State. Mr. Soham Bhalerao i/b DSK Legal for the Respondent No.2-CIDCO. Mr. Anand Kulkarni for the Respondent No.3. _______________________________________ CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ. DATE : 10th September 2026 P.C. : 1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate directions under Article 226 of Constitution of India, directing the Respondent No.1 to forthwith prepare and sanction sub division assessment record (Akarphod Patrak) and to make necessary changes in the revenue record in respect of Petitioners unacquired property more specifically described in the pleadings and prayer clause (A) of the Petition. 2) Mr. Deshmukh, submitted that, for conducting survey, for preparing the necessary plans and effecting mutation entries in the record as contemplated under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the Petitioner has 1/2 KSG 23-Wp-6910-2026.doc paid the charges twice to the Respondent No.1, because the CIDCO had raised an objection. Despite that till today the procedure is not completed. 3) Ms. Chavan, learned A.G.P. submitted that, after the Petitioner filed the Application for carrying out survey in the property and for effecting necessary changes in the revenue record, the Respondent No.2-CIDCO raised an objection and therefore it could not be carried out till today. 4) We may note here that, calling upon the Petitioner to pay the concerned charges repeatedly for the same cause cannot be countenanced. If the CIDCO has raised the objection, once again, the Revenue Authorities ought to have called upon CIDCO to pay the said charges as the objection was raised by it. The Petitioner ought not to have been saddled with the payment of charges for the same cause of action. 5) Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that, the Petitioner has already deposited all the necessary legal charges with the concerned Department for measurement of the land and for effecting necessary mutation entries in the revenue record, we direct the Respondent No.1 to complete the said procedure within a period of six weeks from the date of uploading of present Order on the official website of High Court of Bombay. 6) Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. ( KAMAL KHATA, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. ) 2/2 KIRAN SANJAY GHUGE Digitally signed by KIRAN SANJAY GHUGE Date: 2026.09.17 11:29:53 +0530